The History and Workings of the Supreme Court

After watching the Supreme Court films, the most striking thing I uncovered was that the Supreme Court is not required to reach a unanimous decision. I thought a unanimous decision was necessary in the cases the Justices review and decide upon. There are two court systems in the United States: the federal and state courts.  Federal cases require a unanimous verdict so that jurors are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. If all members of the jury are unanimous in their verdict, then our courts can ensure that standard is met. State court verdicts are a little different where in some states, only a majority vote is required and in others (based on the type of case) the majority is required.  The Supreme Court does not require a unanimous vote and instead looks to the majority.

 

The most important take-away point about the Supreme Court is that it is the upmost prestigious and respected office that is tasked with safeguarding our Constitution. It is the voice of the people, making decisions that are not always popular, and an office that must be trusted by the people.  Bound by the laws of our nation, the American people accept their authority, expertise, and fairness in upholding the job of the Supreme Court, which is to safeguard the Constitution, preserve the union, and uphold the rule of law. Can you even imagine a country where we the people have no legal protections and no governing body overseeing our freedoms and rights? How important it is to have the Supreme Court who can review appeals where lower courts could have made mistakes. This type of checks and balances is afforded to every single person regardless of race, wealth, education, and even those previously convicted of a crime. 

 

The most surprising thing I learned is the sheer number of petitions that arrive each year. Arriving by the hundreds each week, new cases arrive on the desks of the Justices. With a team of clerks and assistants, the Justices are responsible for deciding which cases that the court will accept. It is through thoughtful, educated discussions that the Justices reach an opinion and ultimately a decision regarding a case. If those cases are heard by the Supreme Court, it becomes the job of each Justice to ask the hard questions. Through these conversations, the court gathers information needed. It is more than just the attorney making the argument, it is the Justices investigative questioning that guides them to a decision that upholds the rule of law and defends the Constitution.

 

After watching the video, I am less convinced that politics are as prevalent in decisions made by the Justices on the Supreme Court. The Justice's interviewed were of different backgrounds, had different philosophies and were of different party affiliations however, the amount of respect for the office they held was impressive. Rising above party lines and placing great importance on the decisions they made and adhering to the requirements of their job, I do believe they do so with honor and integrity in upholding the laws of our nation and the Constitution of the United States. 

Having limited knowledge and understanding about the inner workings of the court, I have only the knowledge that the President in office can nominate a candidate to become a Justice and the Congress confirms or denies that nomination. Both the President and the Congress have their own agendas which clearly play out during the confirmation process. Tune into the last couple of Justice confirmation hearings and it becomes evident that it is a jockeying to get their nominee confirmed for what they believe will be political backing. Specifically, after watching Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, that was the first time I ever remember feeling disappointed by the process and antics of my own government. Our nation's political offices do not always paint a pretty picture so it was refreshing to realize that although games are played in the political realm, the Justice's seem to be able to separate themselves and focus on the job at hand. Although I do agree the confirmation process should be stringent and thorough, I do not appreciate how politicians let their own agendas cloud what should be responsible considerations, but instead become full on attacks to a candidate who is under consideration for the highest seat on the court in our nation.