A solid majority of Americans say Supreme Court justices are more likely to be guided by their own ideology rather than serving as neutral arbiters of government authority, a new poll finds, as the high court is poised to rule on major cases involving former President Donald Trump and other divisive issues.
The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 7 in 10 Americans think the high court’s justices are more influenced by ideology, while only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults think the justices are more likely to provide an independent check on other branches of government by being fair and impartial.
The poll reflects the continued erosion of confidence in the Supreme Court, which enjoyed broader trust as recently as a decade ago. It underscores the challenge faced by the nine justices — six appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democrats — of being seen as something other than just another element of Washington’s hyper-partisanship.
Theres no such thing as an impartial person.
I like pineapple on my pizza. Therefore, I rule that everyone else must always eat pineapple on their pizza. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about pizza, so this is totally okay and exactly what the “Founders” wanted.
This is not, and never was, merely an issue of “being an impartial person”… but believing that you can and should be able to force your own partial views onto others - sometimes under threat of state violence - even when those views directly contradict the obvious letter and intent of our Constitution.
“Ideology over impartiality” means “they rule by fiat, rather than by any principle of justice.”
Its not believing they can, they just can.
This is true. It can be strived for, though, and there are strategies to overcome bias, increase impartiality, and identify bias in others. If the United States supreme court (and really its legal system too) had any integrity, it would champion doing so.
I think the best strategy is to assume the worst. Assume that theyll take whatever bribes they can get away with, empower their political party however they can, seek to harm groups theyre hateful towards, etc. Restrict what they can get away with, do not permit any self accountability, keep the roster changing so corrupt roots cant go deep.
I think most of the liberal justice would argue the court is and that’s the problem. The keystone of Originalist philosophy is that judges should be impartial and leave policy decisions to the people (except when the constitution prohibits restrictions). To do that they are supposed to follow the original meaning, not the contemporary understanding.
In Living Constitutionalism judges are expected to apply their own personal standards and worry about the practical reproductions (that they for see).
The difference is at least some of us recognize our bias and work to mitigate its effects while the rest of us don’t even know there’s supposed to be a difference.