Layout

As I just finished the A Level politics course, I'm going to work through the course backwards to extract the info while it's still fresh in my mind 

So we'll do Unit 4C first;  about governing the USA i.e judges, lawmakers, the president and the sacred document...the Constitution

Then we'll do Unit 3C next; about how people are represented in the USA i.e elections, pressure groups, political parties and the importance of race and ethnicity in America.

After that, we'll travel back to AS Politics Unit 1 and 2 which is totally focused on the UK and European Union

In the near future, I may also work with some people who followed other A2 routes such as political ideologies, to enrich this site and broaden the audience

SUPREME COURT: Are judges politicians in disguise?

In an ideal world, the Supreme Court should be independent and neutral. It should be immune from the ebbs and flows of politics i.e it should make decisions solely based on the Constitution.

Independent: The Court should not be influenced by other political agents such as Congress, the president or the public. Justices have fixed salaries and permanent seats to promote independence

Neutrality: The Court should not have any vocal political affiliations. It should treat everyone equally (rule of law) and base rulings on the Constitution and other sources of law

However, there are concerns that the Court is sensitive to public opinion and political bias. Ever since Bush v Gore (2000), where the Court effectively chose the winner of the 2000 presidential election, many have insisted that the Court has become too involved in politics

As such, there has been loads of debate concerning the politicisation of the Supreme Court

Politicisation: the involvement of politics in an institution, especially one that is supposed to be independent and neutral

At A2, you are likely to get questions about the politicisation of the Supreme Court. This can come in different forms such as

-To what extent are Justices 'politicians in robes'?
-'Politicians in disguise'. Assess this view of the Supreme Court.

Here's how I would structure my answer

Intro; Explain the nature of the debate. Why do people think Justices are now politicians in disguise? Briefly explain significant events which have spurred on concerns of the politicisation of the Court e.g. Bush v Gore, the impact of landmark decisions such as the June 2015 same sex marriage ruling


Main body; Don't forget that analysis and evaluation account for 50% of your marks. So ensure you always have a 'However' or 'On the other hand'

NOT INDEPENDENT + NEUTRAL The increased willingness of judges to overturn precedents shows that they are yielding to political pressure. Typically, loose constructionists overturn precedents as seen in Roe v Wade 1973  and Lawrence v Texas 2003. However, even strict constructionists and originalists overturn precedent, ignoring the stare decisis principle. Scalia would argue that overturning a precedent is necessary if the original decision was wrong. Also, he supports overturning precedents that were products of judicial activism eg Citizens United v 2010 and McCutcheon v FEC 2014 overturned McConnell v FEC 1993	INDEPENDENT + NEUTRAL Judges are independent and neutral; in Arizona vs USA 2012, Elena Kagan recused herself from the case to promote impartiality, because she supported the federal government while she was the US Solicitor General
The clout of judicial review. Judicial review is a process where the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of laws and actions of the executive and legislature. It is updating the meaning of the Constitution. It can invalidate the laws of an elected body - it affects day to day lives of Americans and high profile issues such as same sex marriages, abortion etc. Most prominent in 2000 where Rehnquist even had to apologise for the politicised nature of the Bush v Gore ruling	Most cases are not of this nature Judges tend to ignore highly divisive cases Their interpretation of the law often is not in accordance with their personal views eg Scalia However, as Obama said when he was a senator, judges are not robots, and when a case is so difficult, they will end up 'following their hearts'
President’s bully pulpit; the president often throws his political weight behind a decision or criticise it openly eg Eisenhower supported the Brown v Board ruling, George H W Bush condemed the flag burning ruling. Obama condemned the Citizens United ruling as an outlet for unlimited money, Obama lauded the 2015 same sex marriage ruling Presidents can also comment on cases before rulings, which may influence the outcome eg Obama mentioned in early 2015 that he hopes the Court will rule in favour of gay marriages this year
The increase in 5-4 decisions suggest the Court is becoming more politicised, as political ideology is playing too great a role in rulings The Atlantic pointed out that prior to the Warren Court, only about 2% of decisions were 5-4 rulings. But this number increased with the Warren, Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts Courts. Close 5-4 decisions in Rehnquist (Bush v Gore) Roberts Court with issues such as obama care in National Federation of Business v Sebelius (2012) *Hollingworth v Perry 2013 Salinas v Texas 2013	Judges don’t tend to be politically active, as this is not allowed. For example the last judge to be impeached for political activity was Samuel Chase in the early 19th century In the Roberts Court there has been declining judicial activism. 5-4 decisions tend to be few but high profile. Between 2005 and 2012, on average 43% of cases were 9-0 decisions in the Roberts Court
Court takes public opinion into account too often eg Grutter v Bollinger over 350 amicus curiae briefings were submitted and the court acknowledged the impact of public opinion Court generally sits with public opinion eg mental health death sentence rulings	Population size has grown and public engagement has been facilitated by media and national polls technology. more educated. it is important for the court to consider public opinion to maintain its legitimacy. However, after a certain extent, public opinion should not interfere with independence Court can ignore public opinion. eg 1989 flag desecration decision. To an extent, Citizens United ruling. Lack of cameras in the Supreme Court is protection from public opinion eg prevents the media from taking soundbites from the 2015 same sex marriage hearing
The appointments process is too political. The President attempts to prolong his influence in government by nominating a judge with a similar ideology. Thus Obama- Kagan + Sotomayor 2010 , 2009 The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings and the American Bar Association gives an informal rating. This is often not based on the judicial ability, but on issues. The increase in partisanship has worsened this issue, as a Republican Senate Judiciary Committee tends to interrogate a liberal nominee chosen by a Democrat President but give soft questions to a nominee from their own party eg Sonia Sotomayor was asked questions on racial remarks.In terms of the vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommed Kagan on a 13-6 vote- a carbon copy of the Sotomayor vote (indicator of partisanship?) Likewise, the ABA is not impartial, as it based its rating of Clarence Thomas on sexual scandals rather than his skills and qualification. Finally, the impact of the media public opinion is too severe as demonstrated by Bush’s withdrawal of Harriet Miers and the rejection of Robert Bork ($15 million was spent on a TV ad campaign against his nomination)	Once appointed, judges are free to behave how they wish as long as they maintain the Article III principle of Good Behaviour. For example, although Stephen Breyer was nominated by Bill Clinton, he voted with the 6-2 majority upholding the Michigan ban on affirmative action in 2014. They are independent with high stable salaries and life tenure. Thus, conservatives were disappointed with Burger and Warren. Anthony Kennedy is often liberal although appointed by conservative Richard Nixon eg he sided Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor in Arizona v United State 2012 - where the Arizona law SB 1070 was examined
The broad language of the Constitution leaves room for judicial activism, which tends to have political reverberations. Judicial activism effectively infringes the right of Congress and the executive to make and implement laws, as rulings become de facto statute.

Conclusion; Choose a side and say why you agree with it. Possibly give possible policy solutions to reduce the politicisation of the Court e.g. ensure cameras are not introduced

SUPREME COURT: Should judges practice judicial activism or restraint?

First of all, let's clarify the meaning of judicial activism and restraint

Judicial activism is characterised by striking down laws as unconstitutional and overturning precedents, often to protect civil rights liberties. Judges who practice this are often liberal. They tend to uphold loose constructionism, which means they interpret the Constitution based on the values of our modern society

Whereas, judicially restrained Justices tend to abide by precedent (stare decisis*). They are unwilling to make radical rulings and would rather leave this to the elected legislature. They tend to be conservative and believe in strict constructionism (interpreting the Constitution word for word)

*This is the Latin term for standing by precedent. If you're looking to get an A or A*, try to use terms like this in your answers.

Intro; Supreme Court

What is the Supreme Court?

America is massive. The country has over 320 million people i.e you can comfortably fit in the whole population of the UK five times. Each state operates like its own little country with its own laws and unique culture. It is home to global giants such as Google, Walmart, Apple and IBM and the economy is worth well over $17,000,000,000,000 and counting. America is BIG and America is diverse

So of course, in such an environment it is natural to expect conflicts of interest and thus, arguments. Arguments between people, arguments between firms, arguments between Obama and Arizona...

And that's why there is a judicial system in place - to resolve these disputes. For example, if your neighbour's dog bites you, you limp to the local trial courts. If dissatisfied, you can progress to appellate courts and in very serious cases, the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court can decide to reject cases it does not want to hear. When it accepts a case, it uses a process called 'judicial review', where the Justices determine whether the Constitution is in favour of the case.

Formal definition; Judicial review is a process where Justices determine the constitutionality of the actions of lower courts, the executive and legislature



In A2, you're likely to get questions relating to the philosophy, neutrality and independence of the Supreme Court.


Also don't forget that A2 is synoptic i.e the Supreme Court is relevant to every other topic both in Unit 3C and 4C

In fact, here's a useful tip. If you're ever stuck on a question, just think 'Hmmm, what is the role of the Supreme Court here?'

That would give you at least one solid paragraph, and you only need 3 in a 15 marker.

Congratulations

If you are taking Politics at AS/A2, or simply have an interest in the subject, then I say a massive congratulations to you.

Why?

Because politics is the most applicable subject ever. It is connected to EVERYTHING YOU CAN EVER THINK OF

Ok, let's give an example.

You get £5 an hour for your part time job. Yes, yes I know you work extremely hard and you deserve more; but if not for Parliament, you might have been earning much less. The UK Parliament is a body that makes laws, represents the people and supervises the work of the government. They passed the National Minimum Wage Act, a law that made it illegal for your boss to pay you what he really wants to pay. 

Ok another example. 

You're reading this through a computer (whether a laptop or a mini-computer in a phone or tablet). The computer is connected to wifi which connects you to the internet. 

Yes, the internet...a very interesting place ...except if you're in North Korea. 

There is so much internet censorship that the average citizen there has not heard of Facebook. Or Twitter. Or worse, Dominos. Why? 

Because the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, says so. 

What you eat, the clothes you wear, and the prices that you get for both are heavily influenced by government and politics. The fact that you have (or don't have) school mates from all over the world may be a reflection of the immigration policy used by your government. 

Understanding government & politics is not difficult. At this level, the principles and theory of the subject are easy to grasp. But, as with most things in life, it requires dedication and a consistent effort to read the material from your teacher, your textbooks and keep up with the news. 

Once you understand it though, you will be so glad you do. People who get politics tend to have an advantage over people who don't. They understand the intricacies of the news, make  more informed decisions, enrich conversations about current affairs, tend to interview better

If you're looking to impress your in laws, you should probably stay on this website.

This website is based on the Edexcel A-level syllabus but it will be useful for any other mainstream exam board. I also recommend subscribing to 'Prechewed Politics' for extra help.

Once again, I congratulate you for starting this wonderful political journey. And the best part is...there is more than one destination.