The Founding Era

 I currently think of the supreme court as nine people who determine if the constitution is being violated in any particular case. These decisions then set precedents for what to do when that situation comes up again. I see them making these decisions by sitting around a conference table arguing and then writing hundreds of pages on their decision. I don't think it is very glamorous, but it is the aspect of our democracy that was so unique in its founding. 

After watching part 1 and part 2 of the Youtube videos about the Supreme Court, there were five things that stood out to me. 

First, the narrator says, "Their power rests in the faith of the people." To me, the Supreme Court has power because of the Constitution, but it really is our loyalty to what America was founded on that keeps us respecting their decisions.

Second, their job is described just as much restricting the powers of congress and the states as it is protecting the rights of the people. Before, I considered the Supreme Court to be protecting individuals from abuses of power in Government. I now see, however, how necessary it is to also stop government entities from being able to abuse their power in the first place.

Third, The Supreme Court in nature is reactive rather than proactive. They have to wait for people to bring their problems to the courts. I never considered how frustrating it must be to see an issue in America and not be able to change it until someone else brings it to court. Unlike legislators, they can't just write laws into place.

Fourth, from the lawyers' perspectives, they are used to 1, 3, or sometimes 5 judges. Arguing before 9 is a completely different experience. Just having an in depth understanding of the constitution is not enough. This type of lawyer has to be ready to juggle different arguments at the same time for an extended amount of time. To me, that is a difficult skill to develop if you aren't born with it.

Fifth, the press jumps on the decisions so quickly because it is a race to be the first story breaking the news. I've heard about how dangerous it is when media construes the opinions of the Supreme Court, but now I see why they do it. Journalists are not going to sit and read the entire opinion because then their story will be written already by somebody else. In that competitive industry, it is better to write something provocative than nothing at all.