The life time terms of the justices allows them to go against the Prez's wishes; they wont always vote in favor of the Prez or his/her political beliefs. Besides the justices are confirmed by Congress. The Prez doesn't have totes power when it comes to the supreme court. By the way, there may be some judicial activism in the court, but, I believe, that the effects of "opinion overruling law" would be canceled out by another justice, with judicial activism, in an opposing direction, like two rams butting each other. One will, hopefully cancel out the other. Determining if the S.C. Is neutral or not isn't about observing only one supreme court at a moment in time, but multiple courts, over decades.
By the way the current S.C. Is not totally neutral, but the actions and decisions of a futuristic court, will set it all neutral eventually, give it time.
Yes, the Supreme Court is politically neutral. Although the individuals that make up the court may have their own political views, the court itself exists to integrate those views with the rule of law. The court is unjustly accused of "judicial activism" on a regular basis by the side that is on the losing end of the argument, but no such complaint is registered when the court rules for the view of that party. In considering the most difficult legal questions the justices must use their own moral and ethical judgment, which is all that has been granted to them,and make an educated decision. This decision will never make everyone happy.
There is no political neutrality in the composition of the US Supreme Court. The person who is president when a vacancy appears is able to choose a person with beliefs and opinions who will most likely support the president's will. This doesn't create a fair neutrality, it creates political bias instead.
The justices are not neutral, they base their decisions not off of law but rather their personal convictions and morals.In fact they chose a decision they like for a case and bend the law the way it fits to the case. Justices like to say they base decisions off of law and precedents but they are no consistency. There is always a change of doctrine and new judges means new beliefs and new intereprtations.
I said no and the question was asked with regards to what my opinion was and my thought. The reason I feel that the Supreme Court is not politically neutral is for a variety of reasons which have been summed up to arrive at my distinct conclusion on the matter.
Scalia - constantly regurgitating right-wing talking points, some of them being incredibly ignorant. Don't believe me? Read his dissent of the recent California case against DOMA, it's pathetic.
Thomas - Unbelievable the arguments this man makes against affirmative action, he should take that 15 cent sticker off his diploma and stick it on his forehead.
Yes, I'm a liberal, so go figure I pointed out the right wing bias. That doesn't change the fact that there are 2 Justices whose opinions have been so utterly reprehensible and devoid of intellectual honesty/integrity that the "Supreme" in "Supreme Court" should be fact checked.
We all have our basic beliefs as informed by religious writings, historical tradition, revealed truth and logical deduction. The Justices can not be immune to these basic concepts as applied to people, that is politics. Justices will use their power as guided by these basics. They will make mistakes. People will suffer.
The Supreme Court is as biased towards the government as a group can possibly be. 9 times out of 10, if the ruling will hurt the government in any way whatsoever or threaten the power it holds over the people, they will rule in favor of it, even if it's wrong. So no the Supreme Court is not politically neutral at all, very far from it.
The Supreme Court cannot in practice be politically neutral, as it is populated with living, breathing humans who cannot be separated by his/her opinion, which will always be informed by his/her personal politics. Even if the appointee weren’t appointed by a politician, one can’t separate one’s beliefs from decision making when giving your interpretation of the Constitution. Key word, interpretation. How can you interpret something without having your background, your experience, and your political beliefs informing that decision? You can’t, as they are not mutually exclusive.
In theory, the Supreme Court is supposed to be "neutral," but, of course, that's not how it works. A President's choice of whom to appoint to the Supreme Court is always a big deal, and that's because they will always appoint someone who will side with them ideologically. It's as politicized as the rest of the government, which makes it all the more unfortunate that they are unelected and serve for life.
Theoretically, the Supreme Court of the United States must remain politically neutral. However, presidents of the United States are elected by a political party. Choices are vetted before being put before the U.S. Senate for confirmation. If the Senate is controlled by the opposite party of the president, the two entities must come to a compromise as to the choice for a justice. Overall, many divisive issues are decided 5-4 in the Supreme Court. Based upon that voting record, I would say justices have a tendency to be politically motivated for some cases.