Justice Robert Brutinel announced his retirement from the Arizona Supreme Court[1], effective October 31, and marks a significant moment in the state's judiciary, with the implications extending beyond just filling an empty seat. His departure provides Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, with the opportunity to appoint a replacement, a development that is politically noteworthy because it is the first time in nearly two decades that a Democratic governor will get to select a member of Arizona's highest court. Understanding the potential impacts of this appointment and the importance of retaining independent voices like Justice Clint Bolick on the court requires an exploration of the court's composition, the political dynamics surrounding judicial appointments, and the value of judicial independence.
Impact of Brutinel’s Departure and Hobbs’ Appointment
The Arizona Supreme Court has been largely shaped by
Republican governors over the last 19 years, particularly with Governor Doug
Ducey’s expansion of the court from five to seven justices and his subsequent
appointments. The current court's makeup leans conservative due to these
appointments. Justice Brutinel himself, appointed by Republican Governor Jan
Brewer in 2010, is regarded as a conservative figure who has upheld many key
rulings favoring the Republican-leaning legislature and policies in Arizona. His
departure opens a door for Governor Hobbs to influence the ideological balance
of the court, potentially moderating its conservative tilt.
Hobbs’ selection of a new justice will likely aim to reflect
her administration's priorities and values, which could result in a shift
toward more progressive judicial outcomes, especially in areas like voting
rights, criminal justice reform, environmental regulations, and health care
access. While Hobbs is not expected to drastically alter the ideological
balance immediately (given the court’s continued conservative majority), her
appointment can set the stage for long-term changes. The selection of even a
moderately progressive justice could introduce a broader scope of judicial
philosophy and potentially slow the conservative legal trends that have
dominated the state in recent years.
Why Retaining an Independent Justice Like Clint Bolick is
Important
In light of Brutinel's departure and the upcoming
appointment, it’s crucial to underscore the importance of maintaining judicial
independence and why figures like Justice Clint Bolick play a critical role in
the Arizona Supreme Court.
Justice Clint Bolick, appointed by Governor Ducey in 2016,
has carved out a reputation as an independent thinker on the bench. Though
appointed by a Republican governor, Justice Bolick’s judicial philosophy is
often described as libertarian-leaning, focused on individual rights, economic
liberty, and limited government. His independence and willingness to diverge
from traditional party lines have made him a pivotal figure in maintaining a
balanced judiciary, particularly when it comes to controversial issues like
school choice, government regulation, and civil liberties. His presence on the
court offers a counterbalance to more rigidly ideological justices, whether
they lean conservative or progressive.
The retention of an independent justice like Bolick is
important for several reasons:
- Judicial
Independence: Bolick’s track record demonstrates a commitment to
interpreting the law based on constitutional principles rather than
adhering to partisan preferences. This is vital for maintaining public
confidence in the judiciary. An independent judiciary that resists
political pressures can ensure fair and just rulings, safeguarding the
rights of all citizens irrespective of their political affiliations.
- Balancing
Partisanship: As the political climate in Arizona becomes increasingly
polarized, having a voice like Bolick’s on the court helps prevent the
judiciary from becoming another battleground for partisan politics. While
governors naturally appoint justices who reflect their political leanings,
independent-minded justices like Bolick help ensure that decisions are
grounded in law rather than politics. This helps maintain a degree of
ideological diversity and prevents the court from becoming dominated by
one party's agenda.
- Focus
on Individual Rights: Bolick’s emphasis on individual rights,
particularly his defense of economic liberty and his skepticism of
government overreach, provides a necessary check on the power of both the
executive and legislative branches. This approach aligns with the libertarian
tradition that prioritizes limited government intervention and protects
personal freedoms, which can serve as a counterweight to judicial activism
from either the right or left.
- Continuity
of Legal Thought: The Arizona Supreme Court has historically had a
blend of legal perspectives that has enabled it to handle complex and
evolving legal questions effectively. Bolick’s unique stance, which often
marries conservative principles with libertarianism, ensures continuity in
legal reasoning that values precedent and individual autonomy. In a time
when the composition of courts is subject to rapid changes due to
political appointments, retaining justices who prioritize constitutional
interpretation over political expediency is critical for the long-term
stability of legal jurisprudence.
The Broader Significance of Judicial Appointments in
Arizona
Judicial appointments are particularly significant in
Arizona due to the state’s use of a merit selection system for its Supreme
Court justices. Under this system, a bipartisan commission recommends a slate
of qualified candidates to the governor, who then makes the appointment. After
appointment, justices must stand for retention elections, giving voters the
opportunity to retain or remove them from the bench.
This process is designed to emphasize qualifications over
politics, yet governors still have substantial influence through their choices
from the commission’s list. With Hobbs’ upcoming appointment, there is
heightened attention to who will be selected, as it could signal her
administration’s priorities and the future direction of the court.
The significance of Brutinel’s replacement goes beyond just
this single appointment, though. It underscores the delicate balance between
judicial independence and the inevitable political influence that comes with
gubernatorial appointments. In a state like Arizona, which has experienced
rapid demographic changes and political shifts, the makeup of the judiciary
will be critical in shaping how key legal questions—on immigration, voting
rights, environmental policies, and more—are addressed in the future.
Moreover, while Hobbs’ appointment might not immediately swing the court's ideological balance, it will likely influence how future cases are decided, especially on divisive issues where a single vote can make the difference. Justices like Clint Bolick, with their independent streak, will continue to play a crucial role in these deliberations, ensuring that the court does not become merely an extension of the partisan battles being waged in the state legislature or governor’s office.
Justice Robert Brutinel’s retirement and Governor Katie
Hobbs’ forthcoming appointment mark a pivotal moment for the Arizona Supreme
Court. While the court has leaned conservative due to appointments by
Republican governors, this moment offers the potential for a slight ideological
shift. Governor Hobbs’ pick will be closely watched, particularly for how it
may influence key issues that come before the court in the coming years.
The importance of retaining an independent justice like
Clint Bolick cannot be overstated. Bolick’s focus on individual rights, limited
government, and judicial independence offers a counterbalance to partisanship
and ensures that the court remains a place where legal principles, rather than
political ideologies, guide decisions. In an era of increasing political
polarization, figures like Bolick help preserve the integrity of the judiciary,
providing a necessary check on both executive and legislative overreach and
ensuring that the Arizona Supreme Court remains a guardian of the rule of law.
