fbpx

Judicial Statesmanship versus Judicial Fidelity

It is commonly thought that Chief Justice John Roberts is very concerned about preserving the legitimacy of the Court in a polarized America. Many believe that as a result, he will become the Court’s balance, making sure it does not lurch too far right, which would supposedly dissipate its political capital.

But a justice’s focus on the political capital of the Court would seem in some tension with a commitment to the rule of law. Under a classic view of justice, the legitimacy of a Court of law does not depend on whether its decisions are perceived as leaning right or leaning left to the appropriate degree. Indeed, since the boundaries of left and right are always changing, a court focused on retaining its political capital would have all the constancy of a weather vane.

Instead, under this classic view, the Court’s legitimacy is rooted in its fidelity to law. The Chief Justice himself has endorsed this conception when he analogized the judicial function to that of an umpire. An umpire does not apportion his calls so that each side gets a sufficient number in its favor. Instead, he calls pitches as he sees them—in legal terms, he seeks to issue the truest and best interpretations of the law in every case.

One way to resolve this tension is to argue that the public cannot be expected to understand the intricacies of legal decisions. Thus, an appearance of neutrality is more important than actual fidelity to gain the public’s diffuse support for the Court and that support in turn is necessary to maintain the rule of law. Without it, the Court may suffer the defiance of government officials. Or even more likely in our day, the legislature may decide to pack the Court with new judges likely to rule more to their liking. That action would truly undermine the rule of law as it would create incentives for each political party to change the composition of the Court when they control the government. Under this view, a Supreme Court justice must necessarily be a judicial statesman sensitive to politics, not just an umpire, if the rule of law is to be maintained for the long term.

But if this resolution were ever satisfactory, it is is less likely to be so in our transparent age, when even the internal deliberations of the Court become public. A new biography of the Chief Justice by Joan Biskupic supports the widespread claim that he changed his mind after the initial vote in NFIB v. Sebelius, the case about the constitutionality of Obamacare. More problematically, it suggests that he “negotiated a compromise decision” with Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan to get their votes to strike down the effective requirement that state expand Medicare while he upheld the mandate to buy insurance on the basis of the taxing power. According to the book, he apparently formed that alliance after failing to find a compromise with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was put off by Roberts’ efforts.

I do not know how much of this account is accurate, but, if it is true, it does not comport with Roberts’ declared self-conception of the judge as umpire. A judge should follow his duty to declare what the law is rather than seek compromises with his colleagues to burnish the Court’s reputation. In any event, this kind of incident underscores the problem with the idea of judge as a political statesman in the modern era of relative deliberative transparency. The efforts to create an appearance of balance will inevitably become public and at least in some quarters will itself detract from the very political capital that judicial statesmanship seeks to preserve.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on February 15, 2019 at 06:50:50 am

Good piece, good points.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on February 15, 2019 at 09:39:32 am

"Judicial fidelity" is spot on.

read full comment
Image of Mark Pulliam
Mark Pulliam
on February 15, 2019 at 13:23:10 pm

My distant Cousin, Oliver Ellsworth, who was trained in Puritan theology, was forced by health to retire. President Adams was already a lame duck but was able to appoint Secretary of State John Marshall as Chief Justice. He remained Secretary of State and acted as Secretary of State until James Madison became available. So it was Marshall, not Madison, who stuck Marbury's commission in a drawer. While I think the decision was right on political questions and wish the Kansas Supreme Court had followed that philosophy on school finance I sometimes wonder if he had a negative opinion of the Apellant.

Judicial temperament is often an issue in confirmation, but I also wonder whose concept of judicial temperament will prevail in the Senate.

read full comment
Image of Earl Haehl
Earl Haehl
on February 15, 2019 at 13:52:25 pm

Judicial statesmanship:

Translation:
the presumption of Article I Legislative authority under Article III interpretive authority.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on February 15, 2019 at 18:02:56 pm

Well said John.

read full comment
Image of Garrett Snedeker
Garrett Snedeker
on February 17, 2019 at 10:10:12 am

Courts are now unelected super legislatures. A handful of crazed autocrats with zero accountability outside the maintenance of their personal myths and who rule arbitrarily when the whim strikes them. For the citizenry their deaths are our only deliverance after which another member of the Supreme Politburo is appointed. It ends in a terrible crash of course as with the USSR. I have no idea who YOU are or what you might think but to me there is a special stench attached to the “courts”. We have two legislative bodies and an entire executive branch that is enormous by any measure. These unaccountable butchers and sausage stuffers will be SET BACK to an appropriate level not because I prefer it but because it is precipitating collapse.

read full comment
Image of Mike Johnson
Mike Johnson
on August 01, 2019 at 05:56:06 am

[…] the enormous discretion that administrative agencies now enjoy. Because of Chief Justice Roberts’ concern to protect the political capital of the court, these strategies are subtle and have not yet resulted in the outright overruling of any […]

read full comment
Image of Judicial Strategies to Contain the Administrative State
Judicial Strategies to Contain the Administrative State
on August 02, 2019 at 07:58:00 am

[…] the enormous discretion that administrative agencies now enjoy. Because of Chief Justice Roberts’ concern to protect the political capital of the court, these strategies are subtle and have not yet resulted in the outright overruling of any […]

read full comment
Image of Judicial Strategies to Contain the Administrative State – Building Blocks for Liberty
Judicial Strategies to Contain the Administrative State – Building Blocks for Liberty

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

Related