Supreme Court judges often face criticism for championing policies based on their political inclination and ideologies. Nevertheless, in some cases such as the renewal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, the court went against many individuals’ expectations because a team comprised of a conservative judge majority supported actions that were against their general beliefs. If the current Supreme Court judges were to hear the case, they still would uphold the ruling because it reflects their beliefs of defining the US as a haven dedicated to respecting human rights and democratic values.
The US president is responsible for appointing Supreme Court judges who are then confirmed to take office by a senate majority. As a result, US presidents take advantage of these powers to appoint a bench that will serve their ideals. For example, the current Supreme Court judges are comprised of six judges appointed by Republicans and three judges appointed by democrats. As a result, the US Supreme court often exercises judicial restraint since most of their decisions are inclined toward their party affiliations. According to Krutz & Waskiewicz (2021), judges nominated by presidents share similar ideologies with their leaders. Even so, some nominees uphold judicial activism by making decisions people do not anticipate. Judicial activism is a concept of judgment that sets aside government interests and acknowledges the law and contemporary values (Balkin, 2019). Therefore, although the decision to overrule Trump’s abolition of the DACA policy was contrary to expectations, the current judge bench would support the decision due to their republican interests.
The United States Supreme Court is the most powerful institution in the federal judiciary system as it holds the ultimate position over all state and federal courts. Thus, its nine-bench judges are entrusted to rule over critical issues regarding American statutory legislations and policies as they see fit. However, on some occasions, some judges can support ideologies that are contrary to their beliefs. Nevertheless, appointed judges often share the president’s and senate majority’s views.
References
Balkin, J. M. (2019). Why liberals and conservatives flipped on judicial restraint: Judicial review in the cycles of constitutional time. Tex. L. Rev., 98, 215.
Krutz, G., & Waskiewicz, S. (2021). American Government 3e. Open Access Textbooks.