1

Political Affiliation and Judicial Qualifications on Decision-Making

Student

Institution

Course

Instructor

Due Date
 2

Political Affiliation and Judicial Qualifications on Decision-Making

The US has long discussed the connection between court rulings and the political

affinities of the president's nominating judges. A common argument is that judges' rulings might

be influenced by the political philosophies of the presidents who selected them. The paper

analyzes the interactions between political affiliation, judicial judgments, credentials, and

possible disciplinary action. It does this by presenting case studies to highlight these

relationships.

Influence of Political Affiliation on Judicial Decisions

Historically, court rulings have demonstrated links with the political affiliations of the

presidents who appointed the judges. For example, the 2010 decision in Citizens United v.

Federal Election Commission reflected the conservative values associated with the Republican

Party. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court, mostly appointed by Republican

presidents, ruled to increase corporate campaign spending (FEC, 2010). However, in the 2015

case of Obergefell v. Hodges, a majority of justices selected by Democratic presidents sided with

the progressive position of the Democratic Party and voted in favor of legalizing same-sex

marriage.

Role of Judicial Qualifications

The credentials of a judge are a major factor in determining how judges make decisions.

Judges should possess a solid law foundation, a great deal of experience, and a thorough

comprehension of the Constitution. Their credentials allow them to make morally sound

judgments based on knowledge. As Solicitor General before her nomination, Supreme Court

Justice Elena Kagan, for example, brought a plethora of legal experience to the table (Biography,

n.d.).
 3

Impact of Disciplinary Action

The possibility of disciplinary measures, including impeachment, is an effective

disincentive to political prejudice. Judges are more inclined to follow the law because they know

the serious repercussions of rendering prejudiced verdicts. The trial of Justice Samuel Chase's

impeachment in 1805 illustrates how the possibility of disciplinary action may highlight the

significance of impartiality in the judiciary (Cornell Law School, n.d.).

In conclusion, judicial competence and the threat of disciplinary action are important

counterbalances, even if court rulings may sometimes reflect the political connections of the

president-elect. For the public to continue faith in the justice system, judges—regardless of their

political affiliations—must preserve the idea of a fair and unbiased court, which is still

fundamental to the American legal system. In light of the complexities inherent in the interplay

between the court and politics, procedures of qualification and responsibility must protect the

institution.
 4

References

Federal Election Commission (FEC) v. Citizens United. (2010). Supreme Court of the United

States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Obergefell v. Hodges. (2015). Supreme Court of the United States.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Biography of Justice Elena Kagan. (n.d.). Supreme Court of the United States.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographykagan.aspx

Impeachment of Samuel Chase. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/007us398