Does SCOTUS Represent the Intent of our Founding Fathers?

Warning, this is based on the assumption that the Founding Fathers saw the third arm of the government as an independent non-political arm that would make important decisions on the interpretation of the laws established by the Constitution and the Congress.

The reality is that SCOTUS decisions are influenced by political bias. Most of the sitting judges are registered members of a political party. They arrived at the decision to join a political party based on their educational and environmental “programming”. It is only natural that the vote cases they decide will be, at least in some part, influenced by the way they view what is best for the country.

I harken back to what President Washington warns in his farewell speech: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another occasionally foments riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus, the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

We, as voters, are primarily responsible for this situation. I cite the example of a friend that proclaimed: “I am not that sold on Trump as President, but as a conservative, I voted for him because he will have the ability to appoint “conservative” judges to the SCOTUS.” Presidents will naturally tend to put forth their SCOTUS appointments in favor of judges that tend to closely align with their political agenda.

I have a solution that has no chance of gaining traction. From now on, all SCOTUS appointment candidates must not register as members of any political party. It should be up to Congress, via their questioning, to review the candidate’s record for “balanced” (and unbiased) decision-making. I also have a couple of questions. If the intent of our Founders was that the SCOTUS is meant to be optically impartial does it make sense for them to be appointed by the President and should they serve for life?