The Over-Politicized U.S. Supreme Court
Published in Wen Wei Po
(Hong Kong) on 20 August 2009
by Wong Hoi Chun (link to original)
America’s first Hispanic female judge, Sonia Sotomayor, was recently sworn in as justice of the Supreme Court under the world’s watchful eyes. The chief justice and eight other judges in the Supreme Court have the highest jurisdiction in America. They have the right of final appeal on important matters such as disputes in presidential elections and district court rulings. Therefore, the appointment of the justice receives particular attention from society.
Sotomayor was sworn in to replace Justice David Hackett Souter, who retired in June of this year. On the surface, Sotomayor’s appointment represents equality – in America, a Supreme Court justice can be an ethnic minority. However, one must try to figure out the reason why Souter retired voluntarily. What are the political subtleties behind Souter’s retirement? What is the political wrestling happening inside the Supreme Court between Republicans and Democrats? That is what most people are interested in.
According to the U.S. Constitution, all justices of the Supreme Court must be appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. After successful appointment, except for reasons such as voluntary retirement, misdemeanor or poor health, a justice has the job for life. A justice has the highest power, and receives a substantial salary. It is a dream job for many. There must be some untold stories behind Souter’s renouncement of such a dream job. In fact, Souter resigned because he was dissatisfied with the Supreme Court becoming highly politicized. He hoped his walking out would serve as a wake-up call for the fact that the Supreme Court should be impartial, and not a tool for strife between political parties.
Souter Unhappy with Politicization of the Supreme Court
Justice Souter was born in September 1939 and is 69 years old. He served as justice of the Supreme Court for almost 20 years, since October 1990. He is single, does not smoke or drink, and is healthy. Compared with the 89-year-old John Paul Stevens and the 76-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Souter is a young man. Souter has a forthright personality, and hates the politicization of the Supreme Court. In 2000, when there was a dispute over the counting of votes in the presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, Souter insisted on re-counting the Florida votes. However, because the Supreme Court was dominated by conservative Republicans, the court dismissed Souter’s view, and ruled five to four that George W. Bush was victorious. Souter was very angry and wanted to resign as a protest.
History has proven that due to this wrong decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, America fell into a catastrophic abyss in the new millennium. In eight years as president, Bush acted according to his will without restriction, ignoring the world’s opinions and objective facts. He started the war in Iraq in the interest of the oil companies, dragging America into the abyss of war, unable to pull itself out. After that, came the financial epidemic that shook the world. An American professor of law commented on the Supreme Court’s ruling at the time, and said that some judges were using political power without disguise. The image of the Supreme Court had been tarnished in the eyes of the people. Souter saw all this.
Obama Praised Souter
In the past 20 years, the impartiality of the U.S. Supreme Court has been increasingly questioned. The court has become more political; the impact from the political strife between parties in the court has reached a peak. The honest Souter was intensely dissatisfied with all this, but he clearly knew that if he had chosen to resign in 2000, it would give Bush a chance to appoint another conservative to the court, making the Supreme Court even more politicized. For the greater good, Souter chose to endure. Finally, after 10 years of waiting, the Democrats now control the White House. Souter finally had the chance to offer an appointment to Obama. Souter’s exit not only allowed Obama to appoint a liberal justice closer to the Democrats’ ideology, but also adds pressure for the 89-year-old justice to resign.
It was a rare opportunity for Obama to be able to nominate a justice not long after becoming president. It is an opportunity that the Democrats had after 15 years of waiting. No wonder Obama praised Souter highly, saying that “he came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task – reaching a just result in the case that was before him.”
Sotomayor was sworn in to replace Justice David Hackett Souter, who retired in June of this year. On the surface, Sotomayor’s appointment represents equality – in America, a Supreme Court justice can be an ethnic minority. However, one must try to figure out the reason why Souter retired voluntarily. What are the political subtleties behind Souter’s retirement? What is the political wrestling happening inside the Supreme Court between Republicans and Democrats? That is what most people are interested in.
According to the U.S. Constitution, all justices of the Supreme Court must be appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. After successful appointment, except for reasons such as voluntary retirement, misdemeanor or poor health, a justice has the job for life. A justice has the highest power, and receives a substantial salary. It is a dream job for many. There must be some untold stories behind Souter’s renouncement of such a dream job. In fact, Souter resigned because he was dissatisfied with the Supreme Court becoming highly politicized. He hoped his walking out would serve as a wake-up call for the fact that the Supreme Court should be impartial, and not a tool for strife between political parties.
Souter Unhappy with Politicization of the Supreme Court
Justice Souter was born in September 1939 and is 69 years old. He served as justice of the Supreme Court for almost 20 years, since October 1990. He is single, does not smoke or drink, and is healthy. Compared with the 89-year-old John Paul Stevens and the 76-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Souter is a young man. Souter has a forthright personality, and hates the politicization of the Supreme Court. In 2000, when there was a dispute over the counting of votes in the presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, Souter insisted on re-counting the Florida votes. However, because the Supreme Court was dominated by conservative Republicans, the court dismissed Souter’s view, and ruled five to four that George W. Bush was victorious. Souter was very angry and wanted to resign as a protest.
History has proven that due to this wrong decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, America fell into a catastrophic abyss in the new millennium. In eight years as president, Bush acted according to his will without restriction, ignoring the world’s opinions and objective facts. He started the war in Iraq in the interest of the oil companies, dragging America into the abyss of war, unable to pull itself out. After that, came the financial epidemic that shook the world. An American professor of law commented on the Supreme Court’s ruling at the time, and said that some judges were using political power without disguise. The image of the Supreme Court had been tarnished in the eyes of the people. Souter saw all this.
Obama Praised Souter
In the past 20 years, the impartiality of the U.S. Supreme Court has been increasingly questioned. The court has become more political; the impact from the political strife between parties in the court has reached a peak. The honest Souter was intensely dissatisfied with all this, but he clearly knew that if he had chosen to resign in 2000, it would give Bush a chance to appoint another conservative to the court, making the Supreme Court even more politicized. For the greater good, Souter chose to endure. Finally, after 10 years of waiting, the Democrats now control the White House. Souter finally had the chance to offer an appointment to Obama. Souter’s exit not only allowed Obama to appoint a liberal justice closer to the Democrats’ ideology, but also adds pressure for the 89-year-old justice to resign.
It was a rare opportunity for Obama to be able to nominate a justice not long after becoming president. It is an opportunity that the Democrats had after 15 years of waiting. No wonder Obama praised Souter highly, saying that “he came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task – reaching a just result in the case that was before him.”