A recent piece from Above the Law argues that the Supreme Court's political entanglements are nothing new—and that the institution was, in fact, even more openly political in its early years. The source points to the origins of the Court as "distinctly political," suggesting that the current hand-wringing over judicial ideology overlooks a longer tradition of partisan influence.
The article implies that the framers and early justices did not pretend to separate law from politics in the way modern observers might expect. Rather than treating the Court as a neutral arbiter, early political actors saw it as another arena for advancing factional interests. This historical perspective challenges the assumption that today's confirmation battles and ideological voting blocs represent a departure from the Court's intended design.
If the source's reading is correct, the push for a nonpolitical judiciary is a relatively recent aspiration, not a founding principle. The piece does not offer a solution, but it reframes the debate: the question may not be how to purge politics from the Court, but how to manage a reality that has existed since the beginning. As the source notes, the Court's origins are distinctly political—and that legacy continues to shape its role today.