Factors Influencing Decision Making in the Supreme Courts
There are many factors that influence the decision making in the supreme courts. There are not supposed to be any factor, but there are. Ideally, the court is supposed to be influenced only by the laws of that land, and rulings are supposed to be based solely on these laws. The Supreme Court, for instance, decisions that entail constitutional law are supposed to be based fully on what the constitution dictates regarding a certain issue. However, Supreme Court judges typically take into account certain other factors, which will be discussed in this paper.
Partisanship and Ideology
One factor that plays a role in Supreme Court’s decision making is partisanship and ideology. Partisan affiliation is a key factor in determining how a person will cast his/her vote while selecting an official who was elected (Morone and Rogan 503). If the judges are strongly loyal or affiliated to the party, the more likely they are to vote for the candidate from that party. On the other hand, ideology is an important predictor of the judicial behavior in general (McKenzie 805). Today, justices votes in ideological alignment with the party of the president who appointed them. Moreover, judges surround themselves with clerks who reflects their personal ideological views.
Collegiality and Peer Pressure
The other factor is collegiality and peer pressure. Normally, judges spend more time together discussing certain issues regarding the cases they had listened together. As a result, they influence each other on how to make a decision regarding the issue. According to reports from inside the judiciary, justice can change its direction depending on personal appeals and legal arguments by colleagues. In addition, decision making through peer pressure is manifested in the larger legal community (Morone and Rogan 506). Some people make judicial decisions depending on certain judicial position, and these decisions can be sometimes scathing and laudatory.
Institutional Concern
The last factor is the institutional concern, whereby a decision is based on the interest of the court as an institution (Morone and Rogan 506). A good example of such an instance is during the Obamacare case. Chief Justice Roberts, ruled in a manner that he favored the Obamacare act. He did this act presumably because he did not want the judicial institution to be blamed for overthrowing a law that was important, and that had been passed by elected branches. Thus, by his ruling, the court was free of any blame, because it ruled in favor of the government.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear that a number of factors are capable of influencing the decision making of the courts. Not all rulings made in the judiciary abide by the law, sometimes the judge makes ruling depending on the environment surrounding them, or surrounding the case. Even though this type of judgment is not right and is not encouraged, it is applicable in some cases, where the right ruling would bring some controversy. However, it is good for judges to do the right thing since it is their duty to uphold integrity and honesty for the benefit of the constitution and the people of the land.
Work Cited
McKenzie, Mark Jonathan. "The influence of partisanship, ideology, and the law on redistricting decisions in the federal courts." Political Research Quarterly 65.4 (2012): 799-813.
Morone, James A., and Rogan Kersh. By the people: Debating American government. Oxford University Press, 2016.
