"Politics," the Supreme Court and the Rule of Law

A flurry of media attention has been directed lately at the Supreme Court, which scholars have argued has drifted from its responsibility to serve as neutral arbiter of the law. In early May, Thomas Edsall wrote a piece for the New York Times summarizing a lot of this commentary, and concluded that the Court's polarization comes from the four justices who consider themselves most "conservative."

The core scholarship behind Edsall's op-ed came from a study done by Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago, which found that in cases generally considered most "important," these four justices -- Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts -- departed from the "judicial conservativism" they espouse at public speaking engagements, and engaged in an "activist" approach to evaluating legislation.

To be judicially conservative is to refrain from overturning the actions of the political branches unless there is a compelling constitutional reason to do so. Such a reason usually comes from a list articulated in a famous footnote to the Court's decision in United States v. Carolene Products. The principle behind the list is that if a statute infringes on a specific constitutional right or interferes with the basic functioning of democratic processes, the government must prove the necessity of the law; otherwise, the Court ought to assume that any reasonable law is constitutional. The point of such an approach to is prevent judges sitting "on high" from imposing their fundamentally undemocratic judgment on the creation of law. It calls for a careful -- not to say narrow -- reading of the words of the Constitution and a restrained application of judicial power.

Stone argues, however, that in the most important cases Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts tend to vote not according to these principles but according to their own personal political preferences and tastes -- exactly the thing judicial conservatives say it is wrong to do.

Just as referees and umpires ought not be remembered -- because it's always their worst decisions people recall -- the Supreme Court is ill served by its recent notoriety. Justice Scalia, who writes intentionally inflammatory dissents and makes more public speeches (and earns more money for them) than any other justice, is primarily responsible for all this public attention. In my view, this behavior is unconscionably selfish and destructive.

This problem goes beyond the mere reputation of the Supreme Court. It undermines the very foundations of reasoned public discourse in this country. By design, Congress and the executive branch are intended to pursue self-interested agendas, if not in the personal sense, at least in the political sense. But the judiciary is supposed to be dispassionate and neutral. Its  traditions, its methods, its selection, all are designed to insulate judges from the ephemeral demands of re-elections and other political contradictions. I am not naive enough to believe that judges never are influenced by public opinion or electoral competitions, and I am not even arguing that such influences always are bad. The Court at the moment, however, has lost its moorings, and we all are suffering as a result.