OPINION | This article contains opinion. This site is licensed to publish this content.
The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s 1864 abortion law post the Dobbs ruling has sparked controversy and criticism, especially as justices face retention elections.
Justice Clint Bolick, known for his libertarian views, defended the decision in the face of political pressure, stressing judicial independence and adherence to the rule of law.
“The system is not built to withstand political attacks,” Justice Bolick wrote, “and judges seeking retention are at a massive disadvantage.”
“Our judicial ethics limit what we can talk about, and even prohibit us from endorsing each other,” he added. “For those reasons, I will not have a campaign.”
The situation has shed light on the importance of separating politics from the judiciary’s role, emphasizing the need for a merit-based selection system.
Upholding precedents such as the abortion law amidst heavy backlash has largely revealed Bolick’s commitment to impartiality in judicial decisions, a quality crucial in the upholding of the integrity of democracy.
Respecting judicial integrity over political expediency is essential in maintaining public trust in the judiciary and preserving the constitutional order.