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.
Ginsburg has coaxed Sotomayor and others to ignore their oath and their obligations. They openly favor personal politics over rule of law or precedent. If you read their past few dissents, they do not hide that fact. They vote on how THEY WANT things to be, not what the law supports.
Of course they are appointed by congress for life time and cannot do any other work even if they retire. But when they are selected by a very political president and muzzled through the congress. The president and his party nominate those judges they are sure share their ideology and push them through when the party has a majority.
There are five republican, five democratic, and only 1 neutral. Each argues for their side of politics. This shows two sides and if we know anything thing about two sides its politics. As well originally their were ten but since they always tied they added a neutral member. Making 11 so they could have a winner.
All things that matter are political in nature.One's opinion is ultimately informed by a political belief .You cannot expect justices to have no political beliefs when the rest of the population has very strong political beliefs.So while there is a check on Presidential appointments when the senate is controlled by the oppositon party there is no check when the same party controls both the senate and the presidency.The founding fathers tried to put a check on political partisanship on the Supreme Court but sadly that really was too much to expect from any human being.80% of the current court are unanimous votes 20% are either 5\4 or 4/4.This gives us some hope.But when the legal issue is involved in social controversy like affirmative action or the Voting Rights Act that is when this political bias seems most problematic.
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.