argument top image

Should the supreme court justices be apolitical?
Back to question

The Intent of the Original Framers of the Constitution

The Founders of the US certainly advocated for an apolitical court, capable of evenly balancing their system of checks and balances. Due to their desire to uphold liberty and independence, they wanted to distance themselves from policies similar to their mother country, England.

The Argument

As the founders of our nation framed and delegated the roles of government, they were actively scrutinizing the conventions laid by the King of England. Through their Declaration of Independence, they criticized the judiciary of their parent country; “He has obstructed the administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers… He has made judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries”.[1] In an attempt to avoid these grievances in their own newly founded American nation, it was vital to have a fair, impartial, and independent judiciary, established by various parts of Article III of the Constitution as a judicial power whose justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office”.[2]

Counter arguments

Although the Constitution and Articles are to be considered and adhered to, it may be interpreted as the times change and pass as noted by Supreme Court Justices themselves.[3] Additionally, the nomination of Justices is contingent on both the Executive's nomination as well as a Senate majority vote. Due to this vote being necessary (the nature of a vote being political) and the fact that this condition was drafted by the framers may indicate that they did not consider politicization an issue since it is necessary for their approval.



Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Monday, 30 Nov 2020 at 06:01 UTC