(Tiểu luận) american politicsthe influence of the supreme court over the policy making process

Trang 1 FOREIGN TRADE UNIVERSITYBUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ADVANCED PROGRAM American PoliticsThe influence of the Supreme Court over the policy-making process Students’ nameIDHoàng Hà Hải A

FOREIGN TRADE UNIVERSITY

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ADVANCED PROGRAM

American Politics The influence of the Supreme Court over the

policy-making process

Hoàng Hà Hải Anh 2111210006

Vương Ngọc Bảo Châu 2113280002

Phạm Đăng Dương 2114210023

Nguyễn Hà Linh 2113280011

Đỗ Phương Linh 2113280009 Phạm Thùy Nhi 2111210622 Dương Thu Phương 2112280067

Hanoi, 08/2023

Team : The American Dream

Class : American Politics 2023

Professor : Bùi Hải Thiêm

Executive Summary 2

Introduction 2

Background Information 3

Supreme Court 3

Policy-making process 4

Findings 5

Analysis 7

Public opinion on the influence of Supreme Court 7

Democrats & Republicans opinion on the influence of Supreme Court 8

Efficiency of the Supreme Court's Rulings 9

Conclusion 10

Recommendation 11

References 13

1

The Supreme Court plays a critical role in shaping policy-making in the United States through the interpretation and application of the Constitution The Court's unique position as the final

arbiter of legal disputes allows it to shape public policy, safeguard individual rights, and maintain the balance of power within the government Its independence from political influence is crucial

in ensuring impartiality and upholding the rule of law

The Court's independence is safeguarded by several key factors First, justices are appointed for life, reducing the influence of short-term political changes on their decisions Second, the Court's

institutional design, such as its isolation from public opinion and its insulation from direct

political pressure, helps maintain its impartiality Finally, the doctrine of judicial restraint and respect for precedent allows the Court to pragmatically approach policy decisions and prevent

sudden shifts in the law

The Court's independence, however, does not mean it operates in a vacuum Public opinion,

political climate, and ideological considerations can sometimes influence the Court's decisions

indirectly When controversies arise, such as the appointment process or high-profile cases, public scrutiny and political pressure become significant factors Hence, the independence of

Supreme Court in its decision-making is under great debate

Introduction

The Supreme Court of the United States is one of the most powerful institutions in the country's

political system, entrusted with interpreting the Constitution and making important legal decisions As an independent branch of government, the Court is meant to be insulated from

political pressures and influence, ensuring impartiality and fairness in its rulings However, the extent to which the Court should exercise its independence and its level of influence over the policy-making process has long been a subject of debate and scrutiny This essay aims to

examine the question of how independent the Supreme Court should be and whether it exercises

too much or too little influence over the policy-making process, delving into the reasoning behind each perspective

Our goals include investigating the historical backdrop and constitutional foundation for the Court's independence, examining the potential repercussions of too much or too little influence, and presenting a fair appraisal of the Supreme Court's current role in policymaking By

undertaking these objectives, this paper aims to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the Supreme Court's place in the political system, inspire thoughtful discussions regarding the

appropriate balance of power among the three branches of government and implement

recommendations to increase and balance the Supreme Court's impact on policy-making, ensuring that judgments are well-informed, transparent, and representative of the public's

interests

Background Information

Supreme Court

The US government body, the Federal Government, is established by the government to perform specific functions and responsibilities It was composed of three distinct branches: legislative,

executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the Federal courts, respectively (The White House, )

In many countries, including the United States, the Supreme Court is the highest judicial body

Its primary function is to interpret and apply the law, particularly when constitutional issues are involved The Supreme Court's structure typically includes mainly nine Justices, in which one

serves as the Chief Justice Supreme Court justices in the US are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate The process involves nomination, Senate Judiciary Committee review,

3

Senate confirmation, and swearing-in They will serve until retirement, resignation, death, or

impeachment

The Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in the government, including the interpretation of the

Constitution to uphold alignment with its fundamental principles Through judicial review, it scrutinizes the constitutionality of laws and executive activities, thereby upholding a balance in governmental powers The Court solidifies legal precedents with its verdicts, providing a

compass for lower courts and influencing the interpretation of laws Additionally, the Court acts

as a guardian of individual rights, especially in cases concerning civil liberties and equal

protection

Policy-making process

The policy is a set of guidelines or directives designed to address issues and achieve specific

goals The policy-making process provides a structured approach for allocating resources and steering actions toward desired outcomes To formulate a policy, the Supreme Court has to

follow the procedure: agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, policy

implementation, policy evaluation, policy revision

Policy-making in the U.S encompasses the Executive and Legislative branches, which propose

and enact laws, complemented by the influence of interest groups, media, and think tanks Implementation occurs at state and local levels, while courts, academia, and international factors

provide additional perspectives This collaborative engagement ensures a multifaceted and

comprehensive approach to shaping policies

The Supreme Court's role in policy making is multifaceted, encompassing:

● Setting Precedents: The Court shapes the interpretation of laws and guides policy implementation by establishing legal precedents

● Constitutional Review: The Court examines the constitutionality of policies and laws,

potentially recommending policy changes

● Rights Protection: The Court impacts policy choices, especially related to civil liberties

and societal matters, by virtue of its rulings

Findings

The substantial and increasingly pronounced partisan divisions in the broader spectrum of public

sentiment toward the Supreme Court are manifesting in contrasting viewpoints regarding the court's authority and ideological disposition

According to the survey conducted in January, 2022 by Pew Research Center, a notable 30% of American adults assert that the Supreme Court possesses an excessive degree of authority, marking a 5% surge from the proportion who held this belief back in August, 2020, where it stood at 25% However, it's crucial to acknowledge that 58% the American populace opine that

the Supreme Court wields an appropriate and balanced level of power in 2022, while only 11%

perceive it as having insufficient authority to fulfill its constitutional role

The partisan breakdown of these perceptions further reveals a stark divide Within the

Republican camp, a majority continues to assert that the court's authority is in equilibrium with what is deemed appropriate In contrast, among Democrats, there has been a noteworthy shift in

sentiment In January 2022, a significant 40% of Democrats expressed the view that the Supreme

5

Discover more

from:

KET307

Document continues below

Quản trị tài

chính

Trường Đại học…

47 documents

Go to course

Phan-tich-bao-cao-tai-chinh-cong-ty-… Quản trị tài

38

QUẢN TRỊ TÀI Chính

-cô Thương

Quản trị tài

108

QUẢN TRỊ TÀI Chính ML90 Nhóm 13 Quản trị tài

18

Bai tap chuong 2 -bai tap c2

Quản trị tài

3

PV of Annuity

Court has accrued too much power This reflects a substantial increase as it stands as nearly two

times the proportion that held this viewpoint back in August 2020 when it was at 23%

Importantly, nearly half of Democrats, constituting 49%, contend that the Supreme Court in 2022

maintains a level of authority that aligns with their perception of what is suitable and balanced

Democrats and Republicans have differing opinions on the influence of the Supreme Court

During the early 2000s, the Supreme Court's job approval ratings were reasonably constant,

ranging from roughly 60% Some notable decisions decided during this time period, such as Bush v Gore in 2000, which resolved the disputed presidential election, and Citizens United v

6

Quản trị tài

Bảng tra cứu Quản trị tài chính Quản trị tài

13

FEC in 2010, which had far-reaching implications for campaign finance regulations, drew a lot

of attention and may have affected public opinion

The Supreme Court's job approval rating fluctuated from the late 2000s to the early 2010s

(2008-2016), often influenced by major cases such as the Affordable Care Act in 2012, a highly contentious ruling on healthcare reform, and same-sex marriage-related decisions such as United States v Windsor in 2013 As the Court found itself at the center of intense disputes over social

concerns, these major decisions resulted in approval ratings ranging from 40% to 50% Moving from the late 2010s to the early 2020s (2016-2022), the Supreme Court's approval

ratings remained relatively consistent, with approval often ranging from 40% to 60% During

this time, notable cases include Trump v Hawaii in 2018, which dealt with the Trump administration's contentious immigration ban, as well as the confirmations of Justices Neil

Gorsuch in 2017, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 These

confirmations, which are frequently viewed as politically sensitive occasions, may have

influenced public opinion on the court, impacting its approval ratings

Analysis

Public opinion on the influence of Supreme Court

From the data above, we can see that the U.S Supreme Court's decisions during the 2022-2023 term have not caused a significant shift in its overall approval rating among Americans,

maintaining its standing at 40% This suggests that despite the court's landmark rulings on

college admissions, free speech rights for businesses, student-loan debt forgiveness, and the nuances of legislative districting, public opinion remains largely consistent The court's approval

rating has experienced fluctuations in the past, notably after its decisions on high-profile issues such as the Texas abortion law The consistent 40% approval rate, even after several impactful decisions, underscores the possibility of a deep-seated sentiment among the American public

Compared to the historical average approval rating of 51% since September 2000, the court’s

current standing reflects a notable decline from past years, suggesting that its influence and decisions over the past few years have, overall, led to a sustained decrease in public approval

A salient example of the court's impactful decisions is its repeal of Roe v Wade, which granted

states the authority to set their abortion laws This decision drew divisive opinions across the nation In states on the cusp of enacting strict abortion regulations, the populace was nearly split,

with 46% in support and 52% opposing Likewise, states with new or uncertain abortion laws

mirrored this divide In contrast, in the 20 jurisdictions where abortion access remains relatively open, a significant 65% opposed the court's ruling This stark division exemplifies the entrenched sentiments among Americans, further explaining the sustained 40% approval rate

Democrats & Republicans opinion on the influence of Supreme Court

From the data presented in the Findings section, it's clear that perspectives on the Supreme

Court's authority differ significantly across party lines An increasing number of Democrats believe there's an over-concentration of power in the Court, whereas Republicans generally see

its authority as well-balanced This widening partisan divide highlights the shifting public sentiment, especially among Democrats As the Supreme Court delves into intricate legal

8

matters, this divergence in viewpoints underscores the challenges of upholding a perceived

balance in the Court's role and influence

The rise in Democrats voicing concerns about the Supreme Court's power can be linked to

various reasons Changes in the Court's makeup, especially the nomination of more conservative justices, have amplified apprehensions regarding decisions that favor conservative values Decisions like Citizens United v FEC (2010) and Shelby County v Holder (2013) have

heightened concerns about democratic representation Additionally, rulings on polarizing social issues, such as Roe v Wade (1973) and Obergefell v Hodges (2015), have led some Democrats

to question the Court's decision-making prowess on contentious topics Collectively, these

factors have intensified Democratic concerns regarding the Court's reach, especially concerning healthcare, reproductive rights, and civil liberties

Conversely, most Republicans maintain that the Supreme Court possesses an appropriate degree

of authority, given their focus on originalism and upholding constitutional tenets They see the

Court as a bulwark of limited governance and individual freedoms Decisions like District of

Columbia v Heller (2008) and Burwell v Hobby Lobby (2014) find favor with Republican ideals They value the Court's capacity to nullify laws they consider unconstitutional, ensuring a

safeguard against potential governmental excesses and maintaining a governmental equilibrium

Efficiency of the Supreme Court's Rulings

Although there have been periodic spikes in disapproval, overall public and political party

perspectives on the Supreme Court's decision-making process exhibit a general satisfaction Notwithstanding diverse opinions and occasional anxieties over specific judgments, a dominant

sentiment suggests a broad acknowledgment of the Court's dedication to fairness and equality for all citizens This feeling is enhanced by the Court's time-honored function as the Constitution's

protector and the law's arbiter, solidifying its image as an entity adept at resolving intricate legal

and societal challenges to ensure just outcomes

A case in point is the June 26, 2015 ruling where the U.S Supreme Court recognized the right of

all same-sex couples to marry This monumental verdict not only altered legal paradigms but also instigated socio-cultural transitions impacting countless Americans As per Gallup's findings, post the ruling, the well-being metrics of the LGBTQ+ community showed a marked

improvement Happiness levels among LGBT individuals surged to 87%, and those experiencing higher-than-average life satisfaction rose to 62% This progress narrowed the well-being gap

between LGBT and non-LGBT individuals to negligible margins The ruling was instrumental in

creating a more inclusive milieu, granting LGBTQ+ members enhanced levels of happiness and contentment, thereby elevating their overall quality of life

Conclusion

In conclusion, the analysis of public sentiment regarding the U.S Supreme Court's influence

reveals several significant trends The Court's approval rating has shown a consistent pattern over

time, suggesting a stable public sentiment despite impactful decisions This constancy, when viewed against sensitive, contentious issues, might indicate a shift in the Court's perceived

influence

The polarization of opinions on the Court's authority is evident, with more Democrats expressing

concerns about its concentration of power, while Republicans view it as a defender of

constitutional principles This ideological divide underscores the challenge of maintaining a balanced perception of the Court's role

Notably, public satisfaction with the Court's decision-making process remains relatively steady The Court's reputation as a guardian of the Constitution and a fair arbiter contributes to this

10