ESSAY PLAN: Evaluate the view that the US supreme court has become a poiliticised
institution. 30 marks
They are politicised not independent and neutral (appointments)
AO1:
The supreme court appointment process has become politicised through the president
being the one who nominates them and the senate being the one who confirms them.
Evidence:
Since 2006, appointments have seen partyline votes in the senate and relatively few
defections. Nominations by Republicans have seen Republican support and Democrat
disapproval and vice versa – regardless of the qualifications of the nominee. One example
of this is the nomination of Amy Conry Barrett by Trump in 2021. Barrett recieved 0 ‘for’
votes by democrat senators and only 1 Republican ‘against’ vote.
AO2:
This shows that the supreme court nomination and confirmation process has become
something based on politics rather than qualifications or suitability as nominees now have
an overwhelming majority vote from their own party and very little or none from the
opposition, showing that voting for nominees is largely done by partylines now.
Mini conclusion
AO3:
They are independent and neutral (appointments)
AO1:
Although the appointment process may seem politicised through the act of the president
nominating the individual; this does not always mean that the nominee will act in the way
that the president expects them to.
Evidence:
Eisenhower's appointment of chief justice Earl Warren, who turned out to be more liberal
than expected. Eisenhower said that it was the ‘biggest damn fool mistake’ he’d ever
made. Earl made some notable decisions such as Board v The Education Of Topeka 1954.
AO2:
This shows that the president can nominate an individual that aligns with his beliefs, in
addition, a unified government can support the appointment of this individual with no
issues, but if the individual does not act in a way that aligns with the party line they were
expected to vote along, the process is not necessarily politicised. The justice can vote
however they want and it does not have to be according to the views of the president who
nominated them or congress who represent the people.
Mini conclusion
AO3:
They are politicised not independent and neutral (judicial review)
AO1:
A judicial review is where the supreme court decides whether an act is constitutional or
unconstitutional. It is the only power given to them by the constitution. A judicial review is
important as it is the act of interpreting a soverign document and they hold the final say of
how it should be taken. The only way to effectively overrule a supreme court decision
would be to change the document itself.
Evidence:
Madbury v Madison is the first example of the use of the judicial review whereby it became
an official doctrine. In this case, chief justice john marshal established the authority of the
supreme court over federal law.
AO2:
The act of judicial review, seen and established in the case of Madbury V Madison,
presents the argument that the US supreme court is independent and neutral by having the
last say in the interpretation of the constitution and having authority over federal law. As no
one can dispute or change supreme court decisions in a judicial review, it preserves their
independence.
Mini conclusion
AO3:
They are independent and neutral (judicial review)
AO1:
Although the supreme court decisions are final and cannot be disputed, this does not take
away from the influence of political aspects. Judges increasingly seen as political actors
rather than disinterested and partisan legal thinkers. Justices seem to be progressively
aiming to achieve policy goals and using the law as a tool to shape the world to fit a certain
ideology. This is especially vital when looking at judicial reviews, as judges who are
deemed to vote a certain way can influence the outcome of a review, which is particularly
crucial when it is a very important or influential case.
Evidence:
One example of
AO2:
They are politicised not independent and neutral (policy)
AO1:
Evidence:
AO2:
Mini conclusion
AO3:
They are independent and neutral (policy)
AO1:
Evidence:
AO2:
Main conclusion AO3