Abstract

Impartiality is an important theoretical concept that determines the ability of judges to provide both parties of litigation with a fair trial. Despite this, judicial impartiality is relatively unexplored in academic writings. This thesis aims to correct this discrepancy by delving into varying interpretations of impartiality and the occurrence of impartiality debates in the context of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The thesis seeks to answer the question of whether impartiality plays an important role in the appointment of new justices and whether impartiality concerns are overshadowed by political concerns. Furthermore, the thesis explores possible avenues for changes that would ameliorate impartiality discussions, both with respect to theoretical interpretations of impartiality and practical reforms of the confirmation process. Through an analysis of recent confirmation hearings, the thesis concludes that while impartiality is important in considerations of judicial candidates, the problem lies in its competing interpretations, which are mostly divided along the lines of partisan affiliation. Moreover, impartiality is at the core of all kinds of judicial philosophy, which complicates its theoretical separation from various schools of legal thought. This interpretational ambiguity,...