From what I've read and heard directly from Supreme Court insiders, it's not quite that straightforward, and justice philosophies don't necessarily line up behind partisan talking points.
That said, it is fairly clear that the era of "a president nominates a justice who turns out profoundly different from what everyone expected of someone nominated by that president" is clearly over. And, yes, the 2016 election is, irksomely, complicated by precisely that calculus.
'I hate the “you have to vote in the next election because of the Supreme Court!” argument. I hate it because it lets the candidates off the hook: they can offer nothing whatsoever to voters and then rely on SCOTUS fearmongering to get out the vote. I also hate it because it’s a very credible argument. There is never going to be another David Souter, or a justice who gets confirmed and then has an ideological shift on the bench. This next presidential election will also be an election for the next generation of the Supreme Court, and it’s no tragedy that most Americans understand this cynical reality.'
It would be a shame if the next election was based on "Who would you rather nominate the next 3-4 members of the Supreme Court? Hillary? Jeb? Bernie? Ted? Rand? Scott? Mike?" But it could be as simple as that.
Originally shared by +Salon:
The myth of the impartial Supreme Court is officially dead…
Supreme Court’s grand ruse ends: Finally, Americans see the justices for the political hacks they are
It’s great that we’re no longer pretending the Supreme Court is immune to politics
I'm rather discouraged by the poll. Of course Justices bring their viewpoints to the court, but if their decisions go against the party in opposition to the president who nominated them does it automatically mean political hack? I for one don't think so. Even if I disagree with most of what Scalia writes in support of his position on the matters at hand, do I think he merely does it to satisfy a political position or is he expressing what he truly believes about the issues at stake in the arguments in relation to Constitutional framework? No. I think he votes and writes his conscious and from his Constitutional viewpoint. I happen to think relying so heavily on original intent is misguided and overly restrictive, but it is a framework.
Is the political landscape suffering in the aftermath of Citizens United? I believe so, yes. But were the votes in the case politically motivated? I don't see that.
+The Bruce, Mile High, I have to agree. I do believe that personal views are dramatically affecting the court, but this article feels like a partisan hack job itself.
Missing in this opinion piece is discussion of local and state elections and judicial positions. They have been even more politicized.
But otherwise it's hard to argue with the article. I would expect a justice on the supreme Court to have more care about knowledge of various matters and actually dive into the science or at least ask the questions. But statements time and again from Scalia have shown his lack of desire to do this.
Our country's contempt to scientific understanding is really our down fall.
+Jon Weber One reason for that politicization of state judiciaries is because so many of them are elective. An elective judiciary is responsive to the people who elect them, which is precisely why (in a judiciary) that's such a bad idea.