Labels
Posted by

Judicial Policymaking

Judicial Policymaking

By Rebecca Kay Bright

We must remember that the Supreme Court’s job is to examine the laws and cases before them and compare them with the Constitution. If a law or prior decision is unconstitutional, it is the Supreme Court's duty to strike it down. What many see as the Supreme Court “making laws” is actually the Court setting precedent. This practice—considering higher court rulings and ruling similarly—has been common in courts derived from the English legal system. We see similar practices in British, Canadian, and Austrian courts, as well as our own.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not enforce laws directly. Its role is to set legal standards, while enforcement falls under the executive branch and, through it, the law enforcement agencies and lower courts that follow precedent.

Lifetime Appointments and Political Independence

On the topic of lifetime appointments and the political leanings of justices, it is important to remember why the framers of the Constitution designed these terms. The delegates wanted justices to be free from the “momentary passions of the people.” They sought judges who could make rulings based on case law, free from political pressure, fear of reelection consequences, or removal by the president.
Compare this to elected judges, from city courts up to higher levels: they often rule in ways that align with their party or with the dominant political influence. Appointed judges, in contrast, generally give less weight to prevailing political pressures and focus on case law. Of course, judges are human and bring personal values and beliefs to their rulings. Early in their tenure, a justice may align with the appointing party or their own convictions, but over time, many develop independent reasoning—what some call “growing their own brain.” Lifetime appointments are essential because they allow judges and justices to move toward impartiality, relying on law rather than political influence.
Ultimately, lifetime appointments provide stability and integrity to the judicial system. They encourage judges to rule based on precedent and the Constitution rather than short-term political or public pressures, helping preserve the impartiality and fairness of the courts.

----

Sources:



Federal Judicial Center. History of the Federal Judiciary. https://www.fjc.gov/history/federal-judiciary

Oyez. Justices’ Role and the Supreme Court. https://www.oyez.org/about

Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Judicial Precedent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/precedent
Email Post
Labels:
This is the home base for my work as an investigative journalist, author, and poet. I report the stories that institutions ignore, distort, or try to bury. My focus is on systemic harm, social injustice, historical erasure, and the lived realities beneath official narratives. Everything I write is grounded in research, shaped by direct experience, and driven by an unflinching commitment to truth. Here you’ll find longform investigations, cultural critique, personal essays, and poetry that refuses to look away. These are not just stories. They are records. They are warnings. They are witness. This site isn’t curated for comfort. It’s built to document, disrupt, and testify.