By Armstrong Williams
Policies expire, laws and executive orders get repealed. Some stay in place for decades, yet such permanence is never guaranteed. A president's appointment of a Supreme Court justice is the singular action that guarantees the most broad and enduring legacy for any president and it represents the pinnacle of presidential accomplishments.
According to Article III of the US Constitution, federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are appointed to serve “during good Behaviour,” which has been construed to mean “for life,” unless impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate. This indicates that when a Supreme Court justice, one of the nine members of the court with ultimate authority on constitutional and federal law interpretations, among other things, is appointed by a President, the Constitution and other significant matters will be construed in a manner most favourable to the President. Since 1970, this legacy will endure for an average of 28 years. That equates to seven presidential terms during which a president's impact will be felt.Consequently, the impact of Trump on the nation remains evident under the Biden/Harris administration.
He achieved a significant victory with the appointment of three justices, who have shifted the balance towards a constitutional and legal interpretation that aligns more closely with conservative perspectives. Even today, the legacies of George HW Bush, whose final full year in office was 1992, George W Bush, whose final fill year in office was 2008, and Barack Obama, whose final full year in office was 2016, linger.
Our nation, and indeed the world, has undergone significant transformations since 1992, 2008, and even 2016. Nevertheless, in many respects, the presidents of that era continue to exert significant influence today, manifested through the most important judges in the United States.Supreme Court justices, and indeed all judges, are apolitical in a significant way. Although seventy percent of Americans perceive that the justices of the Supreme Court render politically motivated decisions rather than impartial ones, this assertion is fundamentally inaccurate. People, including attorneys, conflate canons of judicial interpretation with political ideology. That is because the outcomes of these interpretative canons for so-called “conservative” justices typically correspond with conservative values, whereas the outcomes for so-called “liberal” justices align with liberal values.
Conservative justices are perceived as more right-leaning due because the left constantly compels them to establish new liberal ideals as fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. The assertion that these are not fundamental rights does not render them political; rather, it indicates a reluctance to impose their definitions of fundamental rights on 300 million Americans, especially when those rights were never contemplated by the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Politicising the Supreme Court has become a common practice among politicians, to the extent that there is currently a covert struggle to remove Justice Sonia Sotomayor following Donald Trump's electoral landslide.
Justice Sotomayor is part of the Supreme Court's liberal faction and is generally perceived as the most liberal member, particularly in contrast to the right-leaning Justice Alito, who is regarded as the Court's most conservative justice. Even looking at the high court one-dimensionally through rulings alone – which is what the public and the media do anyway – the heavily referenced Martin-Quinn Score, a study that attempts to determine the political ideology of Supreme Court justices, reveals that Sotomayor exhibited a leftward lean of -4.09, whereas Alito demonstrated a rightward lean of +2.568 during the 2022-2023 term, with 0 being politically neutral.
So, Justice Sotomayor was 1.6 times as far to the left as Alito was right. To be clear, this study only takes into account the way a judge rules and does not take into account the interpretation of the law, something the study has been heavily criticized for.Sotomayor is 70 years old and will be 74 by the conclusion of Trump's final term. Additionally, she is a Type 1 diabetic, which exacerbates the potential challenges associated with aging. Democrats are undoubtedly still reeling from the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during Trump's presidency, which occurred because she resisted calls to step down, and the likelihood of Trump securing a fourth appointment is significantly greater than Democrats would prefer.
Consider the potential scenario in which Justices Alito and Thomas might resign strategically during Trump's presidency, thereby allowing Trump to appoint new, young justices who share their interpretative philosophies. Furthermore, Republicans will hold a Senate majority, so any nominee from Trump is likely to receive swift confirmation.
However, reports indicate that Democratic officials are reluctant to advocate for Sotomayor’s resignation, as many perceive such calls as ableist due to her status as a type 1 diabetic. Furthermore, they consider these demands potentially misguided, given the uncertainty of her confirmation prior to Trump’s appointment, despite the Democratic majority, which includes four independents in its caucus. All told, no Senator seems willing to put their reputation behind this move.
For Democrats, this election represented more than a mere extension of power for another four years; it signified the potential establishment of a robust, youthful, conservative majority in the Supreme Court for three decades or longer. If Trump prevails, he will oversee four to six Supreme Court appointments, firmly establishing a conservative majority in the Court for decades.
* Armstrong Williams is an American political commentator, entrepreneur, author, and talk show host. Williams writes a nationally syndicated newspaper column, has hosted a daily radio show, and hosts a nationally syndicated television program called The Armstrong Williams Show.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.