Hold the Line! Ideology’s Increasing Burglary into Judicial Decisions
Of all the pivotal elements in a sustaining Democracy, an impartial judiciary is often overlooked. Its most essential functions range from safeguarding civil protections to conducting judicial review of a nation’s law pursuant to its constitution. Inherent in any successful judicial branch is of course impartiality. An ideal that at its peak functions without intrusion from political or religious beliefs. Ideology in the possession of an individual is fine. It often takes the role of an ethical or moral compass for its possessor. And so too must it serve an identical function in a nation’s judiciary at large. However, just as ideology can infect an individual host and instill them with discriminatory beliefs, it poses the same threat to a nation’s judiciary. Sadly, ideology’s increasing burglary into the US’s judicial system is on an alarming rise.
While it’s not a new fact that US courts often determine their rulings along predominate political or religious leanings of its fact finder, there was always sound, supportive constitutional analysis to give it legitimacy. Although in our political tensions today, the trend of political or religious leanings being secondary to a decision’s constitutional analysis has become reversed. In wake of several recent high court rulings, ideology has now taken center stage in many fact finder’s analysis, with sound and impartial examination being the runner-up. The symptoms of this virus are now truly becoming inflamed within the US’s judicial branch, as several decisions below will demonstrate.
Under a religious ideology lens, no recent decision serves as the poster boy more than the Alabama Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding IVF procedures. The state’s highest court weighed human-life protections for lab-produced embryos, in conjunction with the traditional view in analyzing embryos under property rights. In its disturbing examination, authored by the chief justice of Alabama’s highest court himself, Justice Parker made biblical references serving as the bedrock of the court’s analysis. Whether it was his comments highlighting “the wrath of holy god” which would be invoked to any threat to an embryo, or how we are all made in God’s image (we aren’t), Justice Parker’s analysis abandoned all manner of objective and impartial constitutional analysis. This departure represents one of the largest deviations from any Supreme Court, state or SCOTUS itself, sacred duty of impartial constitutional examination. In lieu of analyzing the case under the lens of impartial scrutiny, Justice Parker and those in his majority opinion sought constitutional guidance in their own limiting, dogmatic religious beliefs. In doing so, thousands of women in Alabama who have sought, or had planned to utilize, IVF services had their rights curtailed in the name of Christianity. Had this come from the Alabama state legislature, this decision would constitute a textbook violation of the Establishment Clause. Sadly, with a Catholic-dominated US Supreme Court at the helm, a provision as the Establishment Clause is treated as a pest. Something to be swatted and abused at leisure. This ruling which finds its authority from religious text, has imposed its alleged teachings onto 5 million Alabama citizens. Citizens who in the eyes of our nation’s founders and authors of our Constitution, had the explicit intention of shielding from imposed religious beliefs of others, particularly those empowered to create laws. But the framework of religion is not the only burglar intruding upon impartial judicial analysis.
In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court had ruled that former president Donald Trump was ineligible to be on the upcoming presidential election’s ballot. Three months later in a March 3rd decision, the Supreme Court reversed their ruling, finding that the Colorado high court had erred in its interpretation of the 14th amendment’s section 3 clause, dubbed the “Insurrection Clause.” In a rare departure from its customary, partisan 6-3 rulings, the decision to reverse was unanimous. Such a uniform rejection from the Court signifies clear error in constitutional analysis on behalf of the Colorado high court. The identified culprit: political ideology. The decision handed down from Colorado’s high court was strictly along partisan lines in its narrow 4-3 majority. Care to guess what political ideology the four majority justices belonged to? As one can easily guess…Democrat. I am a classic Liberal, and would have never supported a ruling such as the majority’s decision. The impermissible method of enabling a state judiciary to directly affect the national participation of a presidential election could not have been more obvious. Despite such an obvious answer, the four Liberal justices tainted their ruling with their own bias. And so another example of a court’s ideology burglarizing their duty of impartial judgment rears its ugly head. One can understand an under-qualified lower court judge ruling from their bias, but when a state’s highest and esteemed court falls prey to this rising trend, is when the democracy of our nation’s courts really start to sweat. What’s worse, is that this increased burglary finds refuge in our nation’s most supreme court.
In a nefarious change of heart, the Supreme Court announced February 28th that it would examine Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim concerning the events of January 6th, 2021. Followers of Trump’s immunity suit brought by special counsel Jack Smith were shocked at the release of the Court’s decision. That’s because back in December the prior year, Jack Smith had submitted a request for the nation’s highest court to review the suit’s merit and handedly rejected to do so. It’s (accurately) speculated this change of heart is owed to the elephant in the room of the presidential election timeline. The Court will hear oral arguments on the very last day of its calendar. Its subsequent decision re: Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution will affect when the lower DC federal court ultimately decides the suit’s merit. With the suspected timing of the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling expected in June or July, the final determination of Trump’s immunity by the DC court may well arrive post-election. And what transforms all this drama into the elephant in the room? The fact that an estimated 20-25% of Republicans and a chunky 40-50% of Independent voters have contended they will not vote for Trump should he be found guilty. A reality the Conservative justices, especially the three Trump-appointed ones, are keenly aware of, and undoubtedly desire to prevent from materializing. This is the very essence of judicial dereliction of impartial arbitration. The abandonment by our nation’s highest court owed to their duty of impartiality in favor of a preferred presidential candidate is a stain that will never be washed clean.
As I mentioned at the beginning, it is true that our courts have always injected their ideology into their rulings. Whether it be politics or religion, historically there was always a “buddy system” that was respected. This buddy system would tolerate (for want of a better word), the slight imbalance in impartiality as long as their was sound, constitutional merit to buddy the judge’s ideology. You didn’t have to agree with it, as along as the ruling could be reasonably supported by a rational legal interpretation. But in the time of 2024, the buddy system is under increasing threat. Buddying ideology with sound, constitutional interpretation is no longer vogue. Some of our nation’s most influential courts are belligerently casting their ideology as a solo act within their judicial decisions. And there is no greater threat when a nation’s democratic judiciary is concerned.
In spite of mounting rulings of ideological burglary, it is with trembling hope that I believe that our judicial system can still recover from this string of troubling decisions. Our nation has surely faced ominous times that have tested our democratic principles, but this trend of ideology burglarizing its way into judicial rulings is a growing threat. The weight of which can very well be the straw that breaks the democracy of our judiciary’s back. So it’s in the spirit of my persisting hope for our nation’s judiciary that I plead: hold the line!
