judgesonmerit.org

Yesterday Solicitor General Elena Kagan completed her third and final day of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee and appears poised to become the newest justice, and only the fourth woman ever, on the United States Supreme Court.

In response to accusations that she is too political, Kagan distinguished her role in the Clinton administration from her potential position as Supreme Court justice as “entirely different.” She stressed that once on the bench she would “not favor any political party.”

Said Kagan,

As a judge, you are on nobody’s team. As a judge you are an independent actor, and your job is — is simply to evaluate the law and evaluate the facts as — and apply the one to the other as – as best, as most prudently, as most wisely as you can. And, you know, the greatness of our judicial system lies in its independence.

Kagan’s characterization of the role of the judiciary is appropriate not only for our country’s highest court, but for our state courts as well. Judges must be afforded the ability to think and act impartially no matter what bench they sit on. Despite differences in judicial selection between the federal and state court systems, the primary objective of maintaining judicial independence should remain the same.

However, in Pennsylvania this goal has been severely hampered precisely because of the manner in which we select our judges. By forcing judges to run in contested partisan elections, we have effectively created the appearance, and perhaps the reality, that judges are bound to their political parties. The election system makes people wonder what team a judge is on.

Yet Kagan emphasized that judges aught not be beholden to any outside interests.

And that means when you get on the bench, when you put on the robe, the — your — your only master is the rule of law.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS