The Supreme Court's Impartiality

Hi Readers,

Recently, the Supreme Court has been embroiled in a controversy over the impartiality of two of the Justices on the Court - namely, Scalia and Thomas. What were their crimes? Scalia held closed door planning meetings with Tea Party activists, while Thomas failed to report on 7 years of income for his wife, who had worked for Tea Party activist groups and foundations and earned quite a bit of money from it.

Why are so many people up in arms over it? Because the Supreme Court holds immense power in the US. These powers can be both reactionary or revolutionary. Reactionary means that they can react to anything that has happened - meaning they can overturn any law that is passed by the Congress, or any judicial ruling of any lower court (should they accept the writ of certiorari decision to review the case). Revolutionary in the sense that they can create any precedents they choose, in the forms of their rulings, which will be afterward used as the de facto law of the land in the eyes of the judicial system.

In a sense, the Supreme Court is an authoritarian element, present to counterbalance the democracy that is prevalent in the US. They are the guiding forces of Congress, and sets limits on what is constitutional and what is not. Though the constitution does not seek to intrude into the lives of the individuals, the Supreme Court has the ability to extend or diminish the reach of government as they wish.

It is common for the Justices to have political views - indeed, they are usually categorized by whether they are in the "liberal" or "conservative" bloc of Justices. However, the rulings of the Justices must always be in the best interests of the people, which should always be solidly backed up by their written concurring or dissenting opinions at the end of a case. Because of this immense power, many politicians in the US are worried about Thomas and Scalia's actions, because it brings politics and political games into the neutral ground of the Justices.

Democratic lawmakers are now in the process of introducing legislation to counter this perceived politicization of the court. However, I believe that no matter what Scalia and Thomas does, the Supreme Court must remain impartial and free from the influence of government. Justices will come and go, but the structure will always be there. It is important for the structure to remain untainted by government, or we will be setting a precedent outside of the intent of the Founders.

Now with that being said, I think what Scalia and Thomas are doing is despicable. They are totally dragging the Supreme Court's impartiality through the mud. Imagine if Sotomayor's husband worked for the ACLU, or if Kagan held closed-door meetings with worker unions - the Republicans would be 100% guaranteed out for blood. In addition, their "impartiality", or lack of, is very visible.

The Democrats want to change the ruling on the Citizens United case, which opened the doors to political donations to political campaigns. I don't blame them - I see it as a disgusting intrusion of corporations into government, completely bypassing and eliminating the opinions of the people. As if corporate political lobbies were not enough, corporations can now directly control political campaigns.

I place the blame equally on the shoulders of the conservative justices and the liberal lawyers at the ruling. In my opinion, the defining point was when the justices baited the lawyer with a question involving content regulation, twisted so that the lawyer's response seemed like he was supporting censorship. But regardless of the outcome, the process is done, and we will need to wait until another ruling comes to overturn it...if it ever comes. In another decade or so, the American president could be a simple puppet of corporations, or not. Only time will tell.

-FCDH