SCOTUS and civil rights essay plans
Evaluate the view that SCOTUS is more political than judicial
Political Judicial
Impact of rulings are inherently political, Courts lack power to enforce these
striking down actions of elected branches decisions
- e.g. Bush v Gore = Florida’s court-ordered - court relies on power of President or
manual recount of vote ballots in the 2000 Congress to enforce its decisions due to
presidential election was unconstitutional separation of powers, or it goes unenforced
- e.g. Dobbs v Jackson = overturned Roe v - if ruling is controversial then President/
Wade Congress tend to ignore e.g. in cases
regarding Guantanamo bay between 2004-
8 as they ruled in favour of detainees
cases regarding the prison still brought it
court = ignored e.g. Congress brought
military commission act to work around the
ruling showing disregard for power of court
Justices labelled as liberal or conservative 2/3 cases have more than a majority
- actions are politically motivated - decision made more than political stance
- current SCOTUS is seen as conservative = perhaps constitutional sovereignty means
- e.g. 6 cons = overturned Roe v Wade = justices vote in accordance to it, as
supports more traditional values opposed to fulfilling any potential political
agenda
- e.g. Shelby County v Holding = racial
equality in voting
Appointment increasingly politicised No political experience, purely chosen
- e.g. Sotomayor = appointed by Obama in based on legal experience
hopes for cases to be result in favour of - e.g. Sotomayor = assistant district
their ideology = sided with people claiming attorney
discrimination in education and - e.g. Ketanji – district judge
employment
- e.g. Amy Coney Barret = appointed by
Trump = wanted her to help in overturning
roe v wade
Evaluate the view that the strengths of the appointment process outweigh the
weaknesses
Strengths Weaknesses
Both executive branch and legislative Once confirmed, justices have no
branch have an input into the process accountability and can remain on the court
- good example of constitutional checks and for 30years or more
balances - e.g. conservative justice Clarence Thomas
- presidential nominee checked by Senate accepted luxury gifts from GOP megadonor
Judicial Committee e.g. Sotomayor for decade without disclosing them
distrust in institution from lack of
, transparency
Ensures judicial and personal ability Increasing politicisation and polarisation
- e.g. Sotomayor = assistant district means that recent nominees have been
attorney judged more on their political outlook
- e.g. Ketanji – district judge than expertise
- Douglas Ginsburg = withdrew form - e.g. Gorsuch’s confirmation was almost
process after criticism of previous entirely on party lines, with only three
marijuana usage Democrats voting for him
Hearing allows for a thorough examination Reliance of Senate Judiciary Committee is
of a nominee suitability ineffective
- intense scrutiny which legitimises the - e.g. Republican-controlled Senate
appointment irresponsible refusal even to schedule a
- e.g. Sotomayor criticised for Latino hearing for Merrick Garland in 2016,
remarks leaving a seat on the Court vacant for over
a year.
- dangerous in the long-term legitimacy of
the institution and can prevent the
protection of civil rights a more
objective and quicker method is needed
Evaluate the extent to which the main factor influencing the president choice of nominee
for the Supreme Court is their ideology
Ideology Not ideology
Hopes for cases to result in favour of their Personal characteristics
ideology - increases descriptive representation
- e.g. Sotomayor = appointed by Obama in - e.g. Sotomayor – female and Hispanic
hopes for cases to be result in favour of - e.g. ketanji – female and African American
their ideology = sided with people claiming
discrimination in education and
employment
- e.g. Amy Coney Barret = appointed by
Trump = wanted her to help in overturning
roe v wade
Hopes to gain support for any executive Experience
decision made - e.g. Sotomayor = assistant district
- e.g. Trump hoped to gain support in Mar- attorney
a-Lago scandal // foreign affairs including - e.g. Ketanji – district judge
controversy over Guantanamo detainees
(SCOTUS ruled against Bush’s action in
Hamdan v Rumsford 2006)
Hopes to balance out if opposite ideology May wish to uphold the neutrality of
is dominant SCOTUS to gain votes from sides of Senate
- e.g. Ketanji in conservative court - C+B = has to have support from all
branches of government
- e.g. Roberts = cross party support 78-22
Evaluate the view that the current SCOTUS is ideologically conservative
Evaluate the view that SCOTUS is more political than judicial
Political Judicial
Impact of rulings are inherently political, Courts lack power to enforce these
striking down actions of elected branches decisions
- e.g. Bush v Gore = Florida’s court-ordered - court relies on power of President or
manual recount of vote ballots in the 2000 Congress to enforce its decisions due to
presidential election was unconstitutional separation of powers, or it goes unenforced
- e.g. Dobbs v Jackson = overturned Roe v - if ruling is controversial then President/
Wade Congress tend to ignore e.g. in cases
regarding Guantanamo bay between 2004-
8 as they ruled in favour of detainees
cases regarding the prison still brought it
court = ignored e.g. Congress brought
military commission act to work around the
ruling showing disregard for power of court
Justices labelled as liberal or conservative 2/3 cases have more than a majority
- actions are politically motivated - decision made more than political stance
- current SCOTUS is seen as conservative = perhaps constitutional sovereignty means
- e.g. 6 cons = overturned Roe v Wade = justices vote in accordance to it, as
supports more traditional values opposed to fulfilling any potential political
agenda
- e.g. Shelby County v Holding = racial
equality in voting
Appointment increasingly politicised No political experience, purely chosen
- e.g. Sotomayor = appointed by Obama in based on legal experience
hopes for cases to be result in favour of - e.g. Sotomayor = assistant district
their ideology = sided with people claiming attorney
discrimination in education and - e.g. Ketanji – district judge
employment
- e.g. Amy Coney Barret = appointed by
Trump = wanted her to help in overturning
roe v wade
Evaluate the view that the strengths of the appointment process outweigh the
weaknesses
Strengths Weaknesses
Both executive branch and legislative Once confirmed, justices have no
branch have an input into the process accountability and can remain on the court
- good example of constitutional checks and for 30years or more
balances - e.g. conservative justice Clarence Thomas
- presidential nominee checked by Senate accepted luxury gifts from GOP megadonor
Judicial Committee e.g. Sotomayor for decade without disclosing them
distrust in institution from lack of
, transparency
Ensures judicial and personal ability Increasing politicisation and polarisation
- e.g. Sotomayor = assistant district means that recent nominees have been
attorney judged more on their political outlook
- e.g. Ketanji – district judge than expertise
- Douglas Ginsburg = withdrew form - e.g. Gorsuch’s confirmation was almost
process after criticism of previous entirely on party lines, with only three
marijuana usage Democrats voting for him
Hearing allows for a thorough examination Reliance of Senate Judiciary Committee is
of a nominee suitability ineffective
- intense scrutiny which legitimises the - e.g. Republican-controlled Senate
appointment irresponsible refusal even to schedule a
- e.g. Sotomayor criticised for Latino hearing for Merrick Garland in 2016,
remarks leaving a seat on the Court vacant for over
a year.
- dangerous in the long-term legitimacy of
the institution and can prevent the
protection of civil rights a more
objective and quicker method is needed
Evaluate the extent to which the main factor influencing the president choice of nominee
for the Supreme Court is their ideology
Ideology Not ideology
Hopes for cases to result in favour of their Personal characteristics
ideology - increases descriptive representation
- e.g. Sotomayor = appointed by Obama in - e.g. Sotomayor – female and Hispanic
hopes for cases to be result in favour of - e.g. ketanji – female and African American
their ideology = sided with people claiming
discrimination in education and
employment
- e.g. Amy Coney Barret = appointed by
Trump = wanted her to help in overturning
roe v wade
Hopes to gain support for any executive Experience
decision made - e.g. Sotomayor = assistant district
- e.g. Trump hoped to gain support in Mar- attorney
a-Lago scandal // foreign affairs including - e.g. Ketanji – district judge
controversy over Guantanamo detainees
(SCOTUS ruled against Bush’s action in
Hamdan v Rumsford 2006)
Hopes to balance out if opposite ideology May wish to uphold the neutrality of
is dominant SCOTUS to gain votes from sides of Senate
- e.g. Ketanji in conservative court - C+B = has to have support from all
branches of government
- e.g. Roberts = cross party support 78-22
Evaluate the view that the current SCOTUS is ideologically conservative
