DEANGELO: Partisanship should be kept out of United States courts
American democracy has always persisted on the existence of political parties. They act like coalitions to better aid our legislation and make it easier for voters to align themselves with candidates. But partisanship, like ivy, isn’t welcomed everywhere and suffocates when uncontrolled.
Now more than ever, the inflamed divide between Democrats and Republicans has been moving toward instability. And while fear has taken residence in the heart of voting America, this party dynamic has seeped into the one place it shouldn’t: the courts.
Traditionally, the judiciary has been viewed as above the games of partisan politics. This idea is due in part to their responsibilities to interpret, not create, the law and ensure absolute fairness in doing so. But most importantly, it is to prevent any one party or set of ideas from controlling all three branches of the government.
And yet, unsurprisingly in this climate, that standard has been struggling in reality.
“We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!” President Trump tweeted in March.
Though, partisanship often appears in more insidious ways like an outburst during a Supreme Court nomination hearing. For example, in his recent testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh made unapologetic statements that stood against members of the Democratic party by blaming, “revenge on the behalf of the Clinton’s” for the sexual assault allegations made against him. It was a subtle, yet clear expression of bias and it was embraced by a Republican majority who agreed.
Contemplating the Supreme Court’s legitimacy isn’t new and Kavanaugh’s seated judgment has yet to be tested, but this sight adds another layer to the frayed and flawed holes in our judicial system.
In a more obvious example, cases in the nation’s immigration courts are also susceptible to partisan influence. On October 1, Attorney General Jeff Sessions strongarmed judges by issuing quotas to speed up and track their performance. What sounds like a simple and efficient solution to handle overwhelming court backlogs, is actually a way to undermine the process and aid to an unfair process.
This unethical way of forcing judges to take less time on deciding each case is harrowing. But, since these proceedings fall under the responsibility of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the executive branch, fewer eyes bat at the pervasiveness of Sessions.
In all, these symptomatic instances are part of a larger trend in today’s politics that has been stirring for years. Some elements are roundabout and confusing, but the danger is this: if a party holds power in the executive and legislative branches like the Republicans do now, an influence in the judicial is possible to further their agenda.
In a brief study, law professors Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum have found that the Supreme Court has entered a rare and decisive moment in history. According to their findings, for the first time all of the justices’ seated on the court share the same or similar views with the president who appointed them.
The cases that will appear on the Supreme Court and elsewhere in the upcoming years deal with huge issues that will affect millions of people. These include the extent of abortion rights, religious liberties to discriminate against gay couples, and even possible confrontation with gun control.
If the “appoint a justice, win the war” scheme is proven true, and the justices follow their appointed party’s lead, our judicial system will have cracked.
This rising eruption is neither solely the Republicans or Democrats fault, but rather both sides of the aisle. It stands as a result of decreasing tolerance and increased animosity for the other.
The fault of this lies on both the Republican or Democratic parties who have been proliferating this stance for years. This eruption is a result of decreasing tolerance and increased animosity for the other, where the game has evolved into “who can hold the most power.”
My hope is that this notion isn’t some black hole that will soon swallow everything. American citizens deserve courts that will bar influence and exercise neutral and fair judgment on the basis of the law.
Julia Deangelo is a School of Arts and Sciences senior majoring in journalism and media studies. Her column, "All That Fits," runs on alternate Thursdays.
*Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Due to space limitations in our print newspaper, letters to the editor must not exceed 500 words. Guest columns and commentaries must be between 700 and 850 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to [email protected] by 4 p.m. to be considered for the following day’s publication. Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
