Morgan/Harper

In recent years, public opinion on the reliability of the Judicial branch, and particularly the Supreme Court, has fallen dramatically, down from 60% in 2000 to almost 40% today. Additionally, when discussing Judicial Activism, according to extensive polling, the majority of Americans agree that the Court is far too politicized in their decisions, letting their personal political views interfere with just application of the law. There are checks in place to ensure that the Judiciary is purposefully separated from public opinion, to prevent public political sway from interfering with Constitutional interpretation. Despite this, the fact that such a large majority of the population holds a negative view of the way the modern Judiciary rules on cases, and of Judicial Activism specifically, suggests that there must be a reform in how our judges and justices determine their decisions.

The Morgan/Harper ticket understands that the practice of Judicial Activism too often allows for personal opinions beyond the scope of the Constitution to influence court rulings, and agrees that in all cases, the original intent of the Constitution must be adhered to. Therefore, the Morgan/Harper ticket agrees with the Perseverance party stance that we must encourage judicial restraint, to ensure that the Judicial branch does not overstep its Constitutional bounds. Courts must not fabricate new rights or deviate from the original intent of the Founders in the interpretation of the Constitution, and only engage with cases that have Constitutional implications. In this press release, we outline the failures of legal philosophies outside of Originalism, and propose a solution that will maintain the Courts’ adherence to its intended goal, upholding the Constitution.

The Constitution must be the basis of all judicial interpretation, and therefore any legal philosophies that stray from the foundation of the Constitution will not be the solution. Pragmatism, although a rational stance, is reliant on the limited rationale of biased individuals. Similarly, Living Constitutionalism is further dependent on the subjective interpretations of personal and political convictions, leaving the Constitution overlooked. Whether or not verdicts reached by Judicial Activism uphold the standards of the Constitution depends entirely on the integrity of the Justices, and unfortunately many Justices have failed to maintain this level of integrity. Without the standards of the Constitution, Justices are left to reach decisions based on political views, and this has been a major problem in the modern era, causing such a pronounced lack of faith in the justice system. In a Grinnell College national poll in 2021, it was observed that 62% of Americans believe that political opinions, not adherence to the law, drives court decisions, and these numbers have only increased since then.

To prevent the warping of the interpretation of the Constitution, the Morgan/Harper ticket believes that the Judicial Branch should adopt an Originalist legal philosophy, with a major emphasis on Judicial Restraint and utmost adherence to the intent of the Constitution. Judges must be impartial, unbiased, and non-partisan in their interpretations, showing restraint and limiting their jurisdiction to cases that involve violations of the Constitution. If we ultimately seek to evince change in our judiciary, it must come through an educated citizenry. We must inform the public on how the government is built on the Constitution, so that they can hold those they elect accountable, ultimately influencing those that seek to interpret the Constitution. Through this approach, the Courts will return to the goal of upholding the original intent of the Constitution, limiting the scope of the Judicial branch, and simultaneously restore the public opinion of the Judiciary.