How does the Supreme Court keep from being influenced by politics?

The Supreme Court is totally influenced by politics. There are very few true Constitutionalists on the Court, and most of them have taken to 'legislating from the bench' - instead of upholding the Constitution.

In order to prevent the political influencing, presidents need to appoint people who understand their role, but don't look for that to happen any time soon. The Court has been, and is now, just an extension of the political party in power, and basically interprets the Constitution in light of their political ideology.

Edit: Well, I think it is nearly impossible to argue the other side of this - only in theory can the Supreme Court be unbiased, which is the original intention of the founding fathers. You could probably research their ideas and comments about the Court and how they intended it to work. That's the best I can do, because as it stands now, it is completely influenced by politics. Good luck.

Well this is indeed a hard question. I totally agree with the previous posters. The Supreme Court is getting ridiculous...

I'm sure you know the purpose of the Supreme Court. Their job is to interpret the constitution in areas where laws conflict or are generally unclear.

However like the other poster said, in recent years the Supreme Court has taken it upon their responsibility to "create law" out of no where...some decisions they make are based upon no "laws" per say but rather what they think is just, which is really disturbing. Since the views and opinions of society change quickly based on the era and the Supreme Court is affected by not only political influence but also social influences.

What is also disturbing is the fact that...

"Once appointed, Justices effectively have life tenure, serving 'during good Behaviour', which terminates only upon death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment."

So unlike any other branch (Legistative or Executive), they stay in their positions and do not get re-elected after a certain time frame.

People are starting to see the United States heading towards an Oligarchy (ruled by a few), where the Justices decide what is law and what isn't. Some of the Supreme Court rulings have directly contradicted the constitution, examples given in an excerpt below...

However despite all our agreements of how the Supreme Court is affected by politics here are some points I might argue if I were to suggest otherwise.

====================

Here is a direct quote from Wikipedia, which is despite popular believe very reliable. (but that's another story)

From the section "The Supreme Court's role in separation of powers, and restraints on the Court's power"...

Some argue that the Supreme Court is "the most separated and least checked of all branches of government." Justices are not required to stand for election by virtue of their tenure "during good behavior," and their pay may "not be diminished" while they hold their position (Section 1 of Article Three). Though subject to the process of impeachment, only one Justice has ever been impeached and no Supreme Court Justice has been removed from office. Supreme Court decisions have been overridden by constitutional amendment in only four instances: the Eleventh Amendment overturned Chisholm v. Georgia (1793); the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments in effect overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857); the Sixteenth Amendment reversed Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895); and the Twenty-sixth Amendment overturned some portions of Oregon v. Mitchell (1970). However, when the Court rules on matters involving the interpretation of laws rather than of the Constitution, simple legislative action can reverse the decisions (for example, in 2009 Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter act, superseding the limitations given in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in 2007). Also, the Supreme Court is not immune from political and institutional restraints: lower federal courts and state courts sometimes resist doctrinal innovations, as do law enforcement officials.

In addition, there are other mechanisms by which the other two branches can restrain the Court. Congress could increase the number of justices, giving the President power to influence future decisions via appointments (as in Roosevelt's Court Packing Plan discussed above). Congress could pass legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain topics and cases: this is suggested by language in Section 2 of Article Three, where the appellate jurisdiction is granted "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The Court sanctioned such congressional action in the Reconstruction case ex parte McCardle (1869), though it rejected Congress' power to dictate how particular cases must be decided in United States v. Klein (1871).

Sooo what can we take from this...

1. Because the justices of the supreme court are appointed for life, they do not have to worry about "pleasing" their supporters by judging against their own will.

Meaning, a senator or representative, votes according to the people they represent (supposedly), because if they do not they will not be re-elected for another term. However Justices do not have to worry about such things since their "term" never ends.

2. Their pay cannot be diminished while they hold their position. So the President, for example, cannot lower a Justice's pay because he didn't make a ruling how the President wanted to...

As you'll know, money is a great motivator, and if someone threatens to lower your income, you might be compelled to judge differently in a situation, hence a political influence.

3. They are also not "elected". This is different than #1, because this particularly means they are not chosen by the "people" but rather by the president. They don't have to gain votes by promising to do things while in office, but rather "are appointed". However, some might argue that the President may require the Justice's loyalty before appointing them...

4. The Supreme Court stands alone, and in the excerpt above it explains that the main way for the government to stop the supreme court would be to create legislation restricting the actions of the supreme court, however the senate and the house would have to agree and then the president sign off on such a bill, which could take some time to do...

Read through this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_...

Section 7 is where I got a lot of info...

============

Oh P.S. if someone says hell yes they are politically influenced by such and such, which can be seen because they "are going beyond their powers and are making (instead of interpreting) the law."

Then just fire back and be like...it's only because they aren't politcally obligated to anyone that they make such bold rulings.

Really the Supreme Court is influence by cultural norms...like if the culture thinks abortion is okay, the Supreme Court will allow it, and if we were back in the 1950's where it was like OUTRAGEOUS! then the Supreme Court would rule against it...

The Supreme Court is really influence by the culuture, more than the Politics...I think...which is really even more dangerous...they're making LAW based on what people THINK is okay...

it doesn't.