Blog Post #2

The Supreme Court: My Reflection

The Supreme Court has always been a far-off entity to me. I knew of its general purpose, but I had never taken the time to consider how the Justices approached their jobs and fulfilled their duties. After watching these two videos, I now have an understanding of the fundamental philosophies that guide the Supreme Court's decisions and the complexities that accompany them. 

The first video helped me grasp the extent to which the Supreme Court bases its decisions on the Constitution. I knew beforehand that the Constitution plays a key role in the Court's activities, but it never resonated with me that it is the document of the Court's foundational principles. The history behind this is incredibly interesting too. I was most surprised by the changing reputation of the Supreme Court. Perhaps since it's held in such high regard in current times, there was no reason for me to think it had ever been regarded otherwise. However, after the Dred Scott Decision in 1857, the Court did in fact take a hit to its credibility. The Justices - under Roger Brooke Taney - ruled that Congress couldn't end slavery, ultimately weakening their authority. Nowadays, people hold a general acceptance of the Court's authority, as the Court has established that it's predominantly guided by the Constitution. It's important to note, though, that the Constitution holds different implications for us now. After the addition of multiple amendments, every human being is considered the "People" in "We the People."

The second video gave insight into the technical workings of the Supreme Court. I learned about the oral argument, which is a public discussion between the Justices and lawyers. My biggest takeaway from the Justices describing the oral argument is that the Court is essentially having a conversation with itself by using the lawyers as an intermediary. I thought this was such an interesting way of looking at it. Ultimately, this idea helped to remind me that the Justices are regular people: they have emotions, internal conflict, and the need for external opinions to bounce their own opinions off. This is where the oral argument seems to come in. It allows the Justices to "check" their thought processes, which are naturally subject to human bias. Questions that would never be brought up by the Justices themselves are brought to light. Lawyers can also ask questions about the brief in a very open and honest environment.

After the oral argument takes place, the Justices vote and have one on the majority side write an opinion paper. Opinion writing is a time-consuming procedure, as the drafts can last for months and can be up to 80 pages long. The finalized paper is sent out to the press to interpret in simple terms for the public. Learning about opinion writing caused me to gain a newfound respect for the Supreme Court. I feel that because the Court is set in such a political climate, people (including myself) expect the Justices to hold a sort of agenda. However, I don't think we comprehend just how much effort and thought is put into their jobs. At the end of the day, the Justices do their best to take a long-term view for the sake of the country, even if that means opposing "contemporary political ties."