The Supreme Factor: Why you should start paying attention to the third branch

Published February 12, 2008

By Elyse Stiner

Why is it that the public does not pay as much attention to the Supreme Court as it does to other branches of government? As we know the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are designed to function through checks and balances. Funny thing is, when push comes to shove, the decisions of the Court have no checks. The balance part is debatable.

First and foremost, it is important to understand how these nine justices get to sit on the Supreme Court. Your first guess might be that constituents elect them. That would be wrong - they’re appointed.

We citizens “should” respect the President and Congress’ ability to appoint judges from bipartisan criteria without pushing specific agendas - because that’s what they do best right?
The Constitution says in so many words, “the President gets to nominate the justices” (no qualifications necessary). No fear though, a group in the Senate, dubbed the Senate Judiciary Committee, holds a few hearings with the nominee, and then, if they like him or her, they send the nomination to the entire Senate for a vote. Here’s the icing on the cake: A justice is granted lifetime appointment.

So we don’t directly elect these people, but does it really even matter? Sure they are nine super intelligent people who graduated from places like Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, and Yale, and they interpret the Constitution for us, but why are they so important?
The easiest way to understand the reach of their power on society is to examine some of the things they have done. Here’s a small list to give you an idea: Outlawed segregation; set a standard for affirmative action; made the due process clause economic; established a criteria for creating governments in territories; defined and re-defined federalism; gave commerce a whole new meaning; outlawed partial birth abortion; and designated specific standards for how to decide cases dealing with race, women, and homosexuals. They are an extremely powerful group of individuals and have a far-reaching ability to affect our laws and society.

The call to criticism on the Court comes from one important idea: law vs. politics. Simply put, mixing ideology, power, and Constitutional interpretation can often render a deadly concoction.
There is one huge reason why this is all so important. When you vote for your presidential candidate, you cast your vote for the Court too. It is likely that our next president will nominate at least one new Justice to the Court.

So you decide: elect McCain and you slant the Court even more conservatively. Elect Obama or Hillary and maybe there is hope. When I say hope I mean you decide if you want women to be able to determine what they do with that embryo in them. Or maybe decide your stance on faith based funding, free speech, the environment, equal protection, torture, immigration, mandatory sentencing; the list goes on.

Voters need to figure out their stances on these issues because in the end, the Court will decide on them and no one can overturn them. Right now the majority of our conservative Justices are younger and our liberal Justices are older. Lifetime appointment means most of the young judges sitting on the Court longer.

We need to wake up and start paying attention to possibly the most influential branch of government. Our president chooses them (and let’s be honest, they are chosen ideologically), their decisions are irreversible (except by themselves), and they are a long term investment. The way these nine people feel about things is the way society will be forced to feel. So make an informed decision.

On The Bench:

• Chief Justice John Roberts: Conservative, nominated by George W. Bush, age 53, wants to decrease Court’s docket size.
• Justice John Paul Stevens: Nominated by Gerald Ford, age 87, somewhat of a wildcard in the political balance of the Court but slants liberal.
• Justice Antonin Scalia: Ultra Conservative, nominated by Ronald Reagan, age 71, known to be an impressive academic but a somewhat combative Justice.
• Justice Anthony Kennedy: Conservative/ Moderate, nominated by Ronald Reagan, age 71, often known to build bridges between liberals and conservatives.
• Justice David Souter: Moderate, nominated by George H. W. Bush, age 68, part of the moderate block that existed when O’Connor was on the Court.
• Justice Clarence Thomas: Republican, nominated by George H. W. Bush, age 59, often aligns himself on the far right of the Court with Scalia.
• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Liberal, nominated by Bill Clinton, age 74, known for strongly promoting women’s rights within the Court.
• Justice Stephen Breyer: Very liberal, nominated by Bill Clinton, age 69, often known as a contradictory Justice but is also consistently part of the liberal wing in the Court.
• Justice Samuel Alito: Conservative, nominated by George W. Bush, age 57, was confirmed by a vote of 58-42 due to the Democrat’s lack of success with a filibuster.

Print This Article

Comments