The Supreme Court as a Political Institution - Essay Example

The Supreme Court as a Political At election time, the Supreme Court can be used as a political football. The Supreme Court makes many important decisions with regard to the law. Therefore, it is inherently a political institution. “Instead of a separate entity unaffected by the gale force winds of political change, the Court is a body of nine justices, all with different agendas and varying background” and “it is a very human institution that is and will always be affected by political ideologies and personal feelings” (Politics in the Supreme Court,” 2006, p. 1). The root word of "politics" comes from the Greek, meaning "having two faces." However, some misconceptions must be dispelled. The Supreme court is: political in nature; at the same time, not constrained by politics; and finally, a signpost pointing toward the U.S.s political future. The Supreme Court by its very nature is political. For example, on the issue of abortion, Roe v. Wade was an important case, which was supported by the courts, thereby allowing for women to have abortions legally in the U.S. Now, abortion is also, by itself, a very politically charged topic. Womens rights advocates usually clash with right-to-lifers in their views concerning abortion unless the mothers life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. “In more than three decades since its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue another two-dozen times” (“Supreme Court’s Evolving Rulings on Abortion,” 2010, p. 1). Now, what makes the Supreme Court so remarkable is that it has control over these very types of situations. It can have a lasting effect on peoples lives for years by just one decision decided upon by a small handful of people. In the case of Roe v. Wade, many people are against the Supreme Court decision because they are trying to restrict the rights of women. Many people do not want women to be independent. Roe v. Wade “…is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion…” (“Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision,” 2010, p. 1). “The Supreme Court held that the "right to privacy," assured the freedom of a person to abort…” except in certain circumstances (“Supreme Court Decisions on Abortion,” 2008, p. 1). The same thing was true of black people. For years, women and blacks were discriminated against because they were considered second-class citizens. However, blacks got some modicum of equality with Brown v. The Board of Education, when segregation in schools was banned. That paved the way for across-the-board standardization of discrimination laws, and Jim Crow laws were repealed. Jim Crow laws held black people down and kept them from achieving their highest potential. Since blacks were judged by the color of their skin, they needed extra protection from the law stating that they would be treated equally. If it had not been for the Supreme Court, perhaps women could not have abortions legally. In that way, that would have been bad because women were killing themselves giving themselves self-inflicted wounds trying to give themselves abortions. “Is abortion doomed in the United States? Probably not” (Kirkland, 2009, p. 1). “[A] sharply divided 5-4 ruling [upholding the ban on late-term abortions] could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the courts willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case” (Mears, 2007, p. 1). Black people suffered under the oppressive reign of slavery for hundreds of years, and even 100 years after slavery they were just starting to get their civil rights. If it were not for the Supreme Court ruling on these very real and important issues, blacks and women might not have some of the freedoms taken for granted that are possible to have today. Many people have fought and struggled over the issues of women’s rights, as well as civil rights. Women were successful in the ‘60s of gaining their independence from men, while blacks were successful in gaining their independence from an oppressive society that catered to the whims of white people. Women, for many years, were considered inferior to men in many ways. Similarly, blacks were considered inferior to white people for many years. However, the law changed all this, making it possible for both women and blacks to take ownership of their own status in the world. In this manner, both of these groups struggled for survival and the Supreme Court’s rulings made these two hot-button political issues of rights for women and blacks legal. Thus, the rights were formally acknowledged. From this point on, the political struggle which had been realized in these peoples’ lives was finally acknowledged. Finally, everyone who was a woman or who was a black person could finally have their say without having to be silenced. woman who was facing the choice of having to possibly have an abortion could have one without fear. A black person could finally drink from the same fountain from which a white person could drink. The Supreme Court brought some equality to an otherwise unleveled playing field—which was refreshing for many people. In fact, that is what the Supreme Court does. It makes the issues that have two sides fair to one side that has the better argument. The side that has the worst argument is probably the side that does not deserve to win. However, some people have very valid arguments but public political opinion is against the morally just side’s case. For example, take the case of equal rights for the LGBT community. People who are gay are discriminated against simply because they are gay, and there is no law in the U.S. that bans such discrimination. Gays are treated as second-class citizens quite often, despite the fact that they are people just like everyone else, trying to raise families. They want full lives with the same human rights that heterosexual people do. Gay couples whom are committed to each other should be able to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Just because they have a different way of expressing their sexuality does not mean they should be demeaned because of it. Although for heterosexual people this may be a strange concept, gay people are, at their core, people just like everyone else. They are human beings with feelings and a strong sense of right and wrong, especially because, for much of their lives, gays struggled with being treated equally because they are not accepted due to their sexuality. Although the courts have some political power on certain issues, like gay rights, the Supreme Court has ruled against gay rights because political opinion is not that strong yet in allowing gays to marry and so forth. Perhaps in the next five years or so, this dynamic will change. Currently there is a paradigm shift occurring in America. On one hand, heterosexuals don’t want gays to have the same rights as they do, although they recognize that gay people are people too, on one level. On another, totally different level, people who are not gay may have a difficult time struggling to realize how difficult the path has been for gay people. It is very similar to other socially disadvantaged and marginalized groups and what they have gone through—for example, women and black people. Now, even after the law changes, there is not necessarily a guarantee that that will automatically change peoples’ prejudicial attitudes or rude behaviors towards people of a certain race, sex, or sexual orientation due simply to the fact that a ruling has been made into law—no. Indeed, it is left up the people themselves to eventually do what is right in terms of giving everyone a fair chance. In some ways, the Supreme Court is not constrained by politics. For example, although political opinion (both of the court and the public) may influence what the outcome of a trial is, ideally that should not interfere with the process to decide if a ruling is made legal or not. The Supreme Court should ideally leave the opinions of the public out of their decision-making, as the opinions of the masses can many times be wrong. For example, it is very possible that many whites would have rather had black people continue to live under the Jim Crow laws. However, on this issue, as on many other issues, the public can in fact be wrong. On this issue, the public was definitely wrong. Black people deserved their rights. They deserved to live in a society that at least attempted to treat them fairly as free human beings who had been freed from slavery 100 years prior to 1965. “The legend has been repeated endlessly that the first blacks in Virginia were ‘indentured servants,’ but there is no hint of this in the records. The legend grew up because the word slave did not appear in Virginia records until 1656, and statutes defining the status of blacks began to appear casually in the 1660s” (“Chronology of the History of Slavery,” 1999, p. 1). Some issues can be treated as political footballs, however, public opinion should not ideally sway the Court’s decision. Popular opinion is probably what is keeping gay people from getting their full rights as dictated by the law, as not everyone agrees that gays should be given their full human rights. However, as time goes on, one realizes that, with the advent of Barack Obama becoming President, promising equality for everyone, that gives a message of hope to many people. Many people want a free and fair society where everyone has the tools to succeed. What is so great about President Obama is that during his campaign he promised to give gays the rights they deserve because he realizes what a struggle it was for them to come up in the world, just as women and blacks before them had done. Now it is the gays’ struggle for equal rights, and he can identify with that as a black man living in a country that is still controlled mainly by people who are not of his same skin color. “Basic fairness and constitutional equal protection were the linchpins of [an] historic Iowa Supreme Court ruling that overturned a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and puts Iowa squarely in the center of the nation’s debate over gay rights” (Eckhoff & Schulte, 2009, p. 1). President Obama is a lawyer and he realized that the effect he could have politically were he to appoint another justice for the Supreme Court could have a permanent and lasting beneficial effect on justice for all Americans, no matter what background they came from. That is why his speeches about equality and human rights were so popular and people were coming in throngs to go see him speak. Some states may make civil rights for gays a possibility. It is still difficult in New Jersey for gay rights activists. “Justice Barry Albin, writing for the 4-3 Lewis majority in 2006, said the court would not create the right to same-sex marriage on its own, but told the Legislature to come up with a scheme to guarantee equal rights. The response was the Civil Union Law, enacted the same year” (Booth, 2010, p. 1). President Obama had a dream that people could hope in, which was that basically everyone could be given their equal rights as humans. Although he has been lagging somewhat in making the dreams of gay people come true so that they have equal human rights, eventually he will probably do the right thing and make that issue possibly resolved in the future, before he leaves office. “The values that such gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. Theyre loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer…, and honor…the law” (Bidstrup, 2000, p. 1). Finally, one realizes that the political decisions made by the Supreme Court point to a promising future. Surely in the future gays will probably have equal rights as heterosexuals—although gays may not be treated the same in many places. The fact of the matter is, people who are different are going to be discriminated against. There may be no rhyme or reason to it, but that is the fact. The political nature or apolitical nature of the Supreme Court may be the biggest signpost pointing to the future of Supreme Court decisions to come. The basic gist that one can understand from having studied oppressed peoples in the past is to realize that oppressed people will not be held down or held back forever. Oppressed peoples eventually rise up. Women did it, blacks did it, and now gays are following in the path of their oppressed brothers and sisters by demanding their rights. To sum everything up, the Supreme Court definitely has elements about it that are political. However, one must realize that in the doing of justice, there really is no political motivation save public opinion that really has a lasting effect on the justices’ decisions. To be frank, who really does have control over others’ lives is who an individual puts in power with their vote, or, in this case, who is put in power by the appointment of the President and the approval of the Senate. Perhaps what one should focus on more instead of the politics of how the court makes decisions is instead to make amendments to the Constitution as to how people are elected to the Supreme Court. President Obama was able to elect one Supreme Court justice who was a Latina woman. Judge Sotomayor was elected to the office of Supreme Court justice. For her, she had two strikes against her because, first of all, she was Latina, a minority. The second strike against her was that she was a woman. Judge Sotomayor is hopefully a harbinger of things to come in the world of the Supreme Court. Precisely because she is a Latina and a woman, the very fact that she was elected to the Supreme Court flies in the face of the old ideology that said that women were not capable enough to handle certain jobs, and that Latinos could not hold certain offices. Since Judge Sotomayor will most likely bring an open-minded and liberal voice to the court, as well as provide support for issues like women’s rights, she was a very desirable candidate for this office. It is to President Obama’s credit that he had the forethought to be able to choose a woman of distinguished accomplishments, who, nonetheless, was also from a minority group. This was a politically motivated decision, perhaps to sway the Court to be more liberal. Even though Sotomayor had come down hard on rulings that had issues of race and corporate America at the core, she would hopefully have been taught the skills she needed in order to make her decisions on the Supreme Court with an apolitical and nonjudgmental outlook. In many ways, it is true that the Supreme Court definitely has a political bent. Political issues are often fought over in court. So, while the Supreme Court openly talks about political subjects and political subjects are debated in court, the Court itself is not supposed to be a foray for political opinion. Its decisions will stand the test of time. REFERENCES Bidstrup, S. (2000). Gay marriage: the arguments and the motives. [Online Article]. http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm. Booth, M. (2010). Rights groups ask N.J. Supreme Court for gay marriage fiat. [Online Article]. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446646689&rss=newswire. Chronology of the history of slavery. (1999). [Online Article]. Available: http://innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html. Eckhoff, J., & Schulte, G. (2009). Unanimous ruling. [Online Article]. Available: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010/Unanimous-ruling-Iowa- marriage-no-longer-limited-to-one-man-one-woman. Kirkland, M. (2009). U.S. Supreme Court: knots could tighten around abortion. [Online Article]. Available: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/01/US-Supreme-Court-Knots-could tighten-around-abortion/UPI-71331257059700/ Mears, B. (2007). Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure. [Online Article]. Available: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html. Politics in the Supreme Court. (2006). [Online Article]. Available: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/19470/politics_in_the_supreme_court.html. Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. (2010). [Online Article]. Available: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/p/roe_v_wade.htm. Supreme Court decisions on abortion. (2008). [Online Article]. http://www.godandscience.org/abortion/sld019.html#W0zD1aXtFFEa Supreme Court’s evolving rulings on abortion. (2010). [Online Article]. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5029934. Read More