The US Supreme Court and American Politics

1. What are the ethical obligations of judges when it comes to political matters?

Judges in the American Courts are required to adhere to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The primary principle of judicial ethics is in Rule 1.2 of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct which states, “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” (Greenstein, 2015). With a specific focus on political matters, nothing in the ethics and the constitution’s guarantees of free speech prohibits judges from making political commentary. In any case, under Canon 4 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, judges are allowed to speak, write, teach, and participate on any other issues that concern the legal system, the law, and the administration of justice. This notwithstanding, it is a judicial tradition within the American judicial system that Judges should not participate in public matters of public law and intra-court affairs. This could be regarded as the judicial lockjaw, founded on the need to avoid discussing issues that might one day arrive in the courtroom for determination (Westin, 1962). In addition, it has to do with public sentiments on how judges execute their mandate while at the same time staying above the politics of the day. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s views on the candidacy of Donald J. Trump in 2016 may have been criticized as unethical. Still, in actual practice, the Code of Conduct is only a measure that judges, especially Supreme Court Judges only adhere to voluntarily and have not been enforced on them (Greenstein, 2014), mainly because of the need to maintain the independence of the court as implied by the constitution, where the framers provided the congressional power of impeachment as the only form of punishment for SCOTUS judges.

2. Should the Supreme Court weigh in on political matters of the day in a direct manner? Explain

No, SCOTUS judges should only participate on political matters of the day from a low viewpoint to render a self-explanatory commentary that should not be followed up with explanations, not in a direct manner. Politics is part of the SCOTUS judges based on their nominations, confirmation process in the U.S. Senate, and its ability to interfere in political disputes (Mazzone, 2018), e.g., in the Bush v. Gore decision and court decisions on appointment and re-districting, e.g., in Baker v. Carr. However, the supreme court must avoid the risk of stepping into popular political discourse directly, as doing so would nurture the idea that they are immersed in politics. Thus, the judicial decisions they make are in line with their political preferences. A perception of the supreme court as political would make it harder for the highly controversial decisions they make to be openly accepted by the public. The constitutional boundaries between the mandate of SCOTUS justices compared to that of Members of Congress and members of the white house are not entirely clear. Still, the public does believe such a boundary exists. Thus the differing ethical requirements for justices and political operatives; therefore, SCOTUS judges should be careful not to cross these boundaries.

3. Regardless of the ethical or other obligations of the Supreme Court, is it realistic for the public to expect the court to abstain from political discourse when they are appointees of the president? Explain

Yes, the Supreme Court has an inherent expectation by the public to remain apolitical. The role of the SCOTUS revolves around ensuring that the changing views of the majority do not undermine the fundamental values that are guaranteed to all Americans. The public, therefore, expects the court to be independent and apolitical to effectively carry out its role. For the court, it must be perceived by the general public as being apolitical to successfully carry out the role of determining matters presented before the court. As the highest court in the land, the public expects the supreme court to hear matters before it substantively and render judgment without any political interference. The public expects the Supreme Court Justices to abstain from political discourse to make determinations made by the court acceptable to and regardless of political affiliation. Therefore, it is realistic that the public expects the justices of the SCOTUS to abstain from political discourse; however, whether this is practically possible is another whole question.

4. How can justices “walk the tightrope” between how they are legally supposed to support the constitution while still being true to their personal political worldview? Or can they? Explain