The Supreme Court’s “balance” refers to the ideological makeup of the nine justices, whether the majority leans conservative or liberal. The balance often dictates how the Court will rule on major issues.
Supreme Court justices don’t officially represent a political party and are not supposed to make decisions based on politics and ideology. Ethical rules require that they be impartial, but the Constitution does not require the Court to have a specific number of conservative and liberal justices. However, presidents belong to political parties and are responsible for nominating justices. A Republican president will typically pick judges who hold certain judicial philosophies that generally align with the party’s beliefs and values, as will a Democratic president. This is why people often describe justices as Republican (conservative) or Democratic (liberal) appointees; it gives others a sense of what judges believe and how they might rule in some cases. The ideologies these two sides typically follow are conservatism and liberalism. The views of each party and their respective nominated justices are often opposed.
Politicians, in an effort to control the balance of power on the Court, have proposed increasing the number of justices on the bench or establishing term limits. With that said, the Constitution does not say anything about the Supreme Court being politically balanced. Moreover, if the Court had an even number of justices, it would often become deadlocked with ties. The odd number of judges avoids such a situation. With nine justices on the bench, only a 5–4 vote is necessary for a majority.
But just because a Republican or Democratic president appointed a justice doesn’t always mean that judge will rule any certain way. Judicial philosophy shapes decisions, but those philosophies don’t always align with one party. Occasionally, some justices act as a “swing vote,” meaning they don’t always side with one ideological group, making their vote especially significant in difficult cases. So the Court’s ideological “balance” doesn’t always predict a case’s outcome.
