Are judges politicians in disguise?
When reviewing the functions of the judges, and how and why decisions are made, there are many factors which should come into consideration. The judicial branch should interpret the law and constitution, and to make neutral and impartial decisions. Judges, in theory, should be fair, unbiased, neutral, impartial and not based or linked to any political party or movement.
However, it has been argued in the past that judges are too alike to politicians, as decisions made by the Supreme Court judges have, and will not be mechanical, but in a lot of cases too biased and political. This argument is strongly supported by the outcome of the major Supreme Court case, Roe vs. Wade. This case was a landmark decision which concerned abortion rights for women. Previously, abortion was a very questionable issue and was not allowed in most states. The case had to arguments put forward, one being ‘pro life’ which did not agree with abortion, and supported by the republicans, and the other being ‘pro choice’, which was supported by democrats. Which ever decision was made, the result was always going to be accused of being biased towards one political party, and therefore the neutrality and whether judges are non partisan, would be questions. The eventual decision was that the woman should have the choice, meaning the democrats view was supported and placed by the Supreme Court judges, causing debate on whether the decision was mechanical or political, and raising the issue if judges are too alike to politicians.
A main argument put forward that judges cannot be independent and partisan was when Historian Howard Zinn has claimed in his book A People's History of the United States that the justices cannot be independent, as the members are chosen by the president and ratified by the Senate. Likewise, he says that they cannot be neutral between the rich and the poor, as they are almost always from the upper class.
Judicial review is a...