Questioning the Objectivity and Impartiality of Recent Supreme Court Decisions: Concerns of an Average Citizen
The Supreme Court of the United States holds a crucial role in upholding justice and interpreting the Constitution. However, recent decisions have raised concerns about the objectivity and impartiality of the Court. As a member of civil society, I want to highlight five key issues that contribute to declining trust in the institution, emphasizing the need for stricter ethical guidelines, transparency, and accountability.
I. Disruption of Settled Precedent Law: The Court’s use of its conservative majority to overturn long-standing precedents creates uncertainty and undermines the stability of the legal system. For instance, the recent Dobbs decision outlawing abortion overturns decades of established precedent. Such actions erode public trust and raise questions about the Court’s commitment to maintaining settled law.
II. Perceived Corruption: Concerns regarding undue influence by wealthy, conservative lobbyists on Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts have emerged. Accepting gifts of substantial value from interested parties compromises the appearance of objective jurisprudence. When these justices have cases before the Court that could directly benefit those who gifted them, it creates doubts about the integrity of court decisions.
III. Theoretical and Abstract Cases: The Court’s involvement in hypothetical or abstract cases, where no plaintiff or judgment exists, raises concerns about the proper role of justices. Should they focus solely on judging specific factual cases brought before them, or should they use their positions to weigh in on speculative scenarios? Clarifying this issue is necessary to ensure that decisions are rooted in concrete facts and circumstances.
Furthermore, in ruling against affirmative action but allowing it in certain institutions like military academies, questions arise about the Court’s inconsistent approach to race as a consideration. This inconsistency suggests that the Court may be favoring certain contexts while disregarding race as a factor in other areas, such as educational circles. This raises doubts about the Court’s commitment to equal treatment under the law.
IV. Perceived Hypocrisy: The Court’s decisions that appear to favor legacy students, athletes, or wealthier individuals while disregarding the impact on others can be seen as hypocritical. By behaving in a manner inconsistent with the noble principles they uphold, justices undermine public trust in their ability to make fair and impartial judgments.
V. Legislative Role vs. Evaluation of Claims: The Court’s increasing inclination towards legislating, rather than evaluating claims based on settled law and past practice, undermines its intended role. Justices should interpret laws, not create them. When the Court appears more interested in advancing a political agenda rather than adhering to established precedent, the objectivity of its decisions comes into question.
Conclusion
To restore public confidence in the Supreme Court, it is imperative to address the concerns regarding objectivity and impartiality. Stricter ethical guidelines, enhanced transparency, and accountability mechanisms should be implemented. Justices should be held to high standards of conduct and recusal when conflicts of interest arise. By ensuring a fair and impartial Court, we can maintain the integrity of the legal system and safeguard the trust of the average citizen.
