2005 FRQ on Judiciary

A1. One way in which the judiciary is insulated from public opinion relates to
life-long tenure. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78 points out that one
protection from corruptible influences was the fact that justices were to be
appointed for life and not to be replaced for making potentially unfavorable
decisions.

A2. Another way in which the judiciary is insulated from public opinion relates
to the fact that Supreme Court justices are appointed and not elected.
Therefore a potential justice does not have to appeal (i.e. campaign) to a
multiplicity of interests in order to secure his/her job. Nor can the justice
be voted out of his/her job along with the party out of power.

B1. One factor that works to keep Supreme Court justices from deviating too far
from public opinion is relates to their perception of remaining relevant. The
Supreme Court was not granted the authority to enforce their decisions.
Therefore, they are completely beholden to elected officials and thus the
public to carry out their rulings. The Deep South had a long history of
ignoring Supreme Court decisions relating to correcting racial inequality.
Andrew Jackson famously gloated that John Marshall might have made the
law but didn’t have the ability to enforce it. The Supreme Court must base
its decisions on relevancy and in affect convince the public to accept and
ultimately carry out its rulings.

B2. Another factor that works to keep Supreme Court justices from deviating
too far from public opinion relates to their nomination process. One lesson
for prospective Supreme Court nominees is that they cannot deviate too far
from the mainstream in order to be selected and ultimately confirmed to
office. If their views are considered “too extreme” (as Robert Bork’s were)
they may fail to win confirmation in the Senate. Interest groups work long
and hard to sabotage a nominee that projects himself as too far out of the
mainstream.