AO1: • SC justices are political appointments • Presidents can influence the ideology of the SC when making appointments, particularly if they have the opportunity to make multiple appointments whilst in office AO3: this makes the SC a more political body, as it’s makeup can be influenced by politicians. AO1: • The appointment of SC justices has become an electoral issue in recent years • The appointment of SC justices during divided government has caused controversy, with the Republicans refusing to allow Obama to fill a vacancy in his last year of office, but later allowing Trump to make an appointment after he had lost his re-election attempt AO3: this influenced the ideology of the SC, and was influenced by a political matter- the proximity of the election- rather than judicial matters. AO1: • SC makeup tends to be liberal or conservative • SC justices tend to be considered liberal or conservative in their outlook, with relatively few ‘swing’ justices, and have become more so in recent years AO3: which suggests the SC has become more political than judicial. AO1: • SC has the power to decide whether to hear or decline cases • The power to choose which cases are heard means that decisions may be made on a more political basis than a judicial one, with the SC being accused in recent years of declining cases that are politically controversial or at odds with federal government beliefs AO3: making the SC a more political body than a judicial one. AO1: • Power of judicial review inevitably means that the SC must make decisions on political matters • Judicial review means the SC is using its powers to interpret a political document (the Constitution), and often intervening in debates over state or federal government rights/power AO3: this inevitably makes the SC a political body as it has the power to declare legislation or executive actions unconstitutional at the state and federal level.

AO1: • SC rulings do not always reflect the beliefs/ideology of the president who appointed them SC justices can and do make rulings that are at odds with the views of the president who appointed them AO3: suggesting they are still a judicial body rather than political. AO1: • SC is not always dominated by one ideology, and may ‘swing’ either way • Some justices become ‘swing’ justices once appointed, making decisions that can vary from liberal to conservative depending on the issue at the heart of the case AO3: this suggests that the SC remains a judicial body as not all SC justices lean one way or the other ideologically. AO1: • SC is increasingly willing to hear controversial cases, despite political opposition to their intervention • SC has become more willing to hear and rule on politically controversial cases in recent years such as same-sex marriage, sanctuary cities, abortion AO3: and with decisions that do not always reflect the views of the government of the day, this suggests that they can and do still make decisions on a judicial basis rather than a political one. AO1: • Although justices may be asked to rule in political issues, they are still expected to act impartially • SC justices are scrutinised thoroughly when nominated, including a consideration of what has influenced their decisions in previous cases AO3: suggesting that the ability to rule using judicial reasoning (so using the law and precedent to interpret the Constitution) rather than political beliefs is still significant. AO1: • SC justices are independent of political influence once appointed • SC justices cannot be held to account or directly influenced by the other branches of government so are free to make decisions as they see fit AO3: suggesting they are still a judicial body rather than a political one.