The selection of new justices to replace outgoing ones is highly contentious, with conservative and liberal presidents angling to pack the court with like-minded judges. It may seem cold comfort with today's newly aligned court, but attempts at stacking the court, especially by conservative presidents, have proved difficult in the past. That's because time on the bench, according to Jon D. Hanson and Adam Benforado in Boston Review, tends to spur a general, pervasive, leftward drift among those on it.
Conservatives have bemoaned the appointments of Justices Earl
Warren, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Harry
Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens, among others, because of the
justices' slow movement from conservative to moderate or even
liberal. Why, when the selection process is so rigorous and the
stakes so high, do justices tend to
tow toe the line of
the president who appointed them only during their first five to 10
years on the court?
'The short answer,' Hanson and Benforado offer, 'is that we are not who we think we are.' By expecting their appointees to remain ideologically moored, presidents fail to recognize that people are strongly shaped by their situation. Since one's situation changes drastically once on the court, one's views may undergo a similarly drastic shift. Not all appointees have spent their entire careers judging; some have spent time representing narrow special interests, and so their paper trail will be skewed in one particular direction. Lifetime appointment to the court frees justices from the need to cater to such interests, and this can result in a more moderate perspective on law than previous work indicated.
Inherent in the process of judging, as opposed to advocacy work, is the need to appear neutral, to see all sides of the argument. The constant push to develop complex understandings of contentious cases, the writers argue, 'nudges judges' to the left. Referencing social psychologist John Jost, the writers claim that people who need closure while fearing ambiguity tend to embrace narrow, clearly defined philosophies, a.k.a. conservatism. The complexity of perspective the court inculcates in justices is antithetical to such a world-view, and so the more the justices come to embrace ambiguity and varied perspectives, the further left they drift.
'[G]irded against the potentially overwhelming influence of the
majority,' the Supreme Court is an institution that breeds fierce
ideological and intellectual independence in its justices. While
this independence is not complete -- due to the influence of
Congress, public perception, and think tanks -- it is intact
nonetheless, and history shows it creeping to the left.
-- Nick Rose
Go there >>The Drifters
Related Links from the Utne Archive:
Comments? Story tips? Write a letter to the editor
Like this? Want more?Subscribe to Utne magazine