Which country's supreme court has ideology/partisan split similar to the US?

[David Hume]

In general, there are two approaches of interpreting the constitution:

1, to interpret strictly, stick with the original public meaning or literal meaning.

2, to interpret loosely, giving judges more leeway to interpret according to the evolving standard of decency.

It would be natural that the rightwing party would favor the first and leftwing the second.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You will struggle to find a Constitutional Court with a similar function and culture to the US Supreme Court, full stop.

[AtorBoltox]

Well to some extent there is a split on the High Court of Australia between textualists (not originalists) and those with a more expansive view of the rights a court should recognize. But neither viewpoint is rigidly associated with one particular political party in the way orginalism is in the US. The limited, technical nature of the Australian constitution leaves it to parliament to decide what 'rights' Australians have, so the cases that make it to the High Court are rarely emotive or politically controversial. The one exception is the area of Indigenous native title. The High Court's recognition of continuing Aboriginal interests (not sole ownership) over their historic lands in 1993 sparked a fierce conservative backlash, but 30 years on the concept is non-controversial as people saw the Aborigines weren't going to 'take back' all their land and kick suburban white people out of their houses. So in short, in some ways there is a similar ideological divide on the Australian High Court, but is far less rigid and predictable. There is no Australian equivalent to Alito or Sotamayor, judges who can reliably be trusted to rule in favour of the interests of one political party 100% of the time

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Colombia (I believe - I saw it discussed around their abortion rights ruling) and Brazil (definitely, although with some nuances) have this phenomenon.

[CumbrianLefty]

A very unfortunate one?

[David Hume]

Well to some extent there is a split on the High Court of Australia between textualists (not originalists) and those with a more expansive view of the rights a court should recognize. But neither viewpoint is rigidly associated with one particular political party in the way orginalism is in the US. The limited, technical nature of the Australian constitution leaves it to parliament to decide what 'rights' Australians have, so the cases that make it to the High Court are rarely emotive or politically controversial. The one exception is the area of Indigenous native title. The High Court's recognition of continuing Aboriginal interests (not sole ownership) over their historic lands in 1993 sparked a fierce conservative backlash, but 30 years on the concept is non-controversial as people saw the Aborigines weren't going to 'take back' all their land and kick suburban white people out of their houses. So in short, in some ways there is a similar ideological divide on the Australian High Court, but is far less rigid and predictable. There is no Australian equivalent to Alito or Sotamayor, judges who can reliably be trusted to rule in favour of the interests of one political party 100% of the time

Yet I assume the Liberals would prefer textualists?

[David Hume]

You will struggle to find a Constitutional Court with a similar function and culture to the US Supreme Court, full stop.

In some sense the constitution of 50 states have different structures of the Federal constitution, yet there is a similar partisan patten.

[AtorBoltox]

Well to some extent there is a split on the High Court of Australia between textualists (not originalists) and those with a more expansive view of the rights a court should recognize. But neither viewpoint is rigidly associated with one particular political party in the way orginalism is in the US. The limited, technical nature of the Australian constitution leaves it to parliament to decide what 'rights' Australians have, so the cases that make it to the High Court are rarely emotive or politically controversial. The one exception is the area of Indigenous native title. The High Court's recognition of continuing Aboriginal interests (not sole ownership) over their historic lands in 1993 sparked a fierce conservative backlash, but 30 years on the concept is non-controversial as people saw the Aborigines weren't going to 'take back' all their land and kick suburban white people out of their houses. So in short, in some ways there is a similar ideological divide on the Australian High Court, but is far less rigid and predictable. There is no Australian equivalent to Alito or Sotamayor, judges who can reliably be trusted to rule in favour of the interests of one political party 100% of the time

Yet I assume the Liberals would prefer textualists?

Generally yes, but even the judges Labor appoint are usually not particularly strident progressives or judicial activists. While there is no actual codified rule, it is convention that both the attorney general of the state the judge is from and the federal opposition are consulted on high court nominations. In theory this prevents pure partisan hacks from getting a nod, but the similar blue slip system in the US eventually fell by the wayside, so it's not impossible something similar could happen here and the system becomes politicized. But the power to appoint judges lies solely with the executive, and there is no vote in parliament to confirm any nominee, so a circus like the Thomas or Kavanaugh hearings could never happen here.

[SnowLabrador]

A very unfortunate one?

This. I would go one further and say that if another country's Supreme Court made such horrendous rulings like Dobbs, that country's Prime Minister would overturn it. Instead we have Sleepy Joe.

[Hash]

Colombia (I believe - I saw it discussed around their abortion rights ruling) and Brazil (definitely, although with some nuances) have this phenomenon.

Colombia mention, so obviously I come sweeping in.

The Colombian Constitutional Court does have an ideological split, with the media regularly mentioning magistrates as being more 'liberal' or 'conservative', although this ideological split is not as rigid as in the United States and one magistrate's liberalism or conservatism may not extend to all areas. The Court's decisions are not as 'predictable' along more or less obvious ideological lines as US Supreme Court decisions can be.

There is a clear political influence in the election of ConCourt magistrates, because they're all elected by the Senate from shortlists of three candidates (ternas) nominated by the President (3 seats), the Supreme Court (3 seats) or the Council of State (3 seats). The candidates will tend to lobby and more or less publicly campaign amongst congressmen for support (unless the terna is read as being clearly leaning in favour of one candidate who comes in with an inbuilt advantage for whatever reason), and there is a public hearing of all three candidates in the plenary of the Senate (and closed-door meetings with party caucuses as well). Like in the US, it's quite common for senators to grill the candidates about their views on hot-button moral issues (like abortion), judicial activism and their general legal philosophy.

The President's nominees obviously tend to be quite politically close to the president - the newest magistrate, since December 2023, Vladimir Fernández, nominated by Petro, was Petro's legal secretary (the 'quality' of Petro's terna last year was particularly bad, with three very mediocre candidates who were all employed in the administration); in 2020, Paola Meneses, a relatively inexperienced candidate who knew Duque from high school, was elected from Duque's list. However, magistrates nominated by presidents aren't necessarily ideologically similar to the president who nominated them: Cristina Pardo, nominated by Santos in 2016, had been Santos' legal secretary for six years, but is very socially conservative (while Santos was more or less liberal, though politically cautious). There are also cases where magistrates surprise by turning out to be ideologically dissimilar to the president who nominated them: Carlos Bernal Pulido, nominated by Santos in 2017, had been assumed to be more liberal but quickly turned out to be very conservative and influenced by his religious convictions (Bernal was a very mediocre, undistinguished magistrate who resigned early in 2020, for whatever reason preferring to become a law professor in Ohio) and María Victoria Calle, elected in 2009 from a list presented by Uribe, was assumed to be conservative but turned out not only to be very liberal but also to vote against Uribe's 'second reelection referendum' in 2010.

The current Court has a liberal majority, but has tended to be less activist/interventionist than the first courts in the 1990s. Six of the nine magistrates are progressive, liberal or centrist-leaning, although there are differences among them--some are less keen on judicial activism or 'legislating from the bench', as can be seen from the recent decisions against Petro's state of emergency in La Guajira and the non-deductibility of royalties for tax purposes. The remaining three are more clearly identified as conservatives, particularly on moral issues.