In the past the American public has held the COURT a notch or two above the other two branches in terms of integrity and professionalism. Many believed that the COURT Justices, who are appointed by the President for life, decided cases based the merits without any influence from the political vicissitudes of the day.

Now-a-days the American public seems to view the COURT solely in terms of a conservative and liberal wing. The respect for the high court’s impartiality and wisdom has begun to wain into narcissism. In the past the COURT decided cases that drew immense public interest. The decisions in those cases fundamentally changed the course of American society. In a unanimous decision the Justices ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954) that facilities assigned along racial lines were inherently unequal. The experts credited this decision with paving the way to the end of institutionalized racial discrimination. The Justices, in a 5-4 decision, granted the accused his “constitutional rights” in criminal cases in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). There are very few people in this country who do not know some, if not all, of their “Miranda” rights. Many people disagreed with the decisions in these and other high-profile cases. Yet, the people accepted the COURT’S authority to issue the decisions, which have been rarely vigorously attacked.

Many commentators suggest that the public’s opinion about the COURT’S impartiality shifted dramatically with the decision in Bush v. Gore, 531 US 98 (2000).  In that case the Justices were drawn into the contentious presidential election of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney versus Albert Gore, Jr. and Joseph Lieberman. The presidential election was really too close to call. Who would win the election came down to the way the Florida resolved the issue of counting certain disputed cast ballots. For purposes of this post it is not necessary that a detailed examination of the case be made. Suffice it to say that the Justices in a complicated though well-reasoned decision ruled against Florida’s method of counting the disputed votes. The decision allowed Florida’s certification of candidate Bush to stand. Consequently he won the election by winning 271 Electoral College votes to Gore’s 266. If you supported Bush then you were likely to believe that the SC got the decision right. Yet, Gore’s supporters decried the decision as being purely political to “hand the Republicans the White House though they did not really earn it.” There is no doubt that this decision helped tear down the Supreme Court’s reputation of as impartial arbitrator of the law. From official records, I do not believe that there is any doubt that the Justices would have preferred that the entire matter was decided in the political area without any intervention on their part.

The public is not aware of  that Supreme Court’s decision actually helped Gore’s candidacy. Most of the commentaries agreed that Gore committed a strategic error in initially asking for a recount of the counties that were predominately Democratic. If Florida would have followed Gore’s position Bush would have held onto this lead and won the election. According to a number of scenarios played out by professional statisticians after the election, if all of Florida’s counties conducted the hand recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, George Bush would have been the victor with about 493 Electoral College votes. Democrats do not like to be reminded that  the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision helped their candidate edge closer to winning the election. The per curiam  decision was written by none-other than Associate Justice Scalia.

What has tarnished the Supreme Court’s image as the land’s impartial arbiters of last resort are the political battles that are waged during the nomination process of candidates for positions on the COURT.  Presidents have always nominated a qualified jurists that, to a certain degree, supported their political agenda or philosophy. Today’s nomination process is contentious, politically charged and unfolds live via TV, Internet streaming and social media. The politics that is played out in Senate is duplicated in the public, which in turns, spills back into the Senate’s chamber. If the nomination is lucky enough to withstand this political storm then the candidate is immediately and forever branded as “being for or against a particular side,” before he or she ever decides a case. All of the recently appointed Justices have gone through this arduous and, at times, demeaning process of being considered for a justice on the COURT. I believe that a close examination of the COURT’s decisions over the last two decades would show that the Justices decided cases on their merit. There is no empirical results to support the suggestion that the Justices’ decisions are political based.

Americans have become polarized on almost every major issue. Their views are hardened and they lack a healthy amount of political tolerance. Many Americans wrongly assume that this great divide in opinion is represented on the Supreme Court. There is no evidence that this is the case.