Dunno, Chuck. The question that comes to mind for me...and I have to assume for everybody else: Is it humanly possible for a person to separate his or her political beliefs from his or her duties to interpret the law?
Thus far, my guess is...depends on the person, but probably not. Or maybe it's just a matter of degree?
When a SCOTUS decides to reign as a type of Congressional body, then obviously we've got problems with division of power. There will always be a majority of one political influence or another.
But how is possible to circumvent such actions by the Judaical Branch when clearly the law of the land states gives it the power to virtually act as both legislators and judicial members. The Supreme Court must interpret the legality of laws whenever there are conflicts surrounding laws - created by law making bodies - at all levels.
To me, it seems like the Supreme Court has always been somewhat of a shadow branch of government. Most people don't really pay attention to the process of the S.C. or how it's influenced by political philosophies, etc.
But it's activities and power are becoming more and more visible every day...well, at least to me.
Political influence or biases exist in the S.C.. It always has - regardless of the party in control. There's nothing to stop judicial activism whatever way the political leaning of the WH.
I don't dispute that the political leanings of individual justices will color their decisions. They are, after all, human.
The fact remains, however, that for decades (60 yrs???) the SCOTUS has developed and applied various tests when determining the Constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress and the individual states. During that time, the Court has ALWAYS applied what is called the "rational relationship" test to statutes arising out of Congress' authority to "regulate commerce." That test provides for the lowest level of judicial scrutiny of legislation, i.e., that test gives Commerce Clause based legislation the highest degree of deference.
The test is essentially as follows: is the challenged legislation rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest? Under that test, it is not necessary that a particular justice actually "agrees" that the legislation is "proper"; it is only necessary that a rational argument could be made to support the legislation; essentially, if reasonable minds could disagree over the legislation, then it should pass the test.
We will just have to wait and see whether the SCOTUS will continue to observe the principle of stare decisis and apply the test it has been applying to Commerce Clause based legislation for decades, or whether the political leanings of various justices will result in the development of a "new test".
