The two videos about the US Supreme Court were very interesting and taught me a lot about the Supreme Court. The first video begins by pointing out how the Supreme Court interprets a 200-year-old constitution, safeguarding liberty, preserving the union, and upholding the rule of law. This particular statement is intriguing to me because of how our society is constantly evolving and changing every day; however, the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting a set of principles written centuries ago. This particular document that poses fundamental rights and freedoms has to be explained to fit modern dilemmas and issues.
In the first video, Justice Stephen Breyer has the opportunity to speak directly to the audience and explains that "once it is confirmed, all of us are primarily responsible to the law, to this institution, to your own conscience, and the public no longer has the direct ability to influence the decision through the ballot box, and that is why the confirmation process is an important thing." This statement from Breyer is interesting. He explains that once a Supreme Court justice is confirmed, they only have three responsibilities: the law itself, the institution of the Supreme Court, and their own conscience or sense of justice. The Supreme Court is not there to appeal to the public but to interpret the law that follows the constitution and the constitution only.
 |
| Justice Stephen Breyer |
John Marshall had just been named Chief Justice in the early 1800s. Under Marshall, the court asserted for the first time the greatest of all judicial powers, striking down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. In the case of Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall held an opinion of, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." The court has since then become a co-equal branch of government.
The second video transitions to the court addressing the constitution to resolve national problems. Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Scalia, and Ginsburg spoke with law professor A.E. Dick Howard. Justice Kennedy starts the conversation by saying that they have an advantage that John Marshall did not have. He says that they have 200 years of history, of detachment, in which they can see the folly of some ideas, the wisdom of others. He continues to say that the fact that they are interpreting a 200-year-old document isn't a disadvantage but an advantage. Him saying that is surprising to me because when hearing that the United States is following a 200-year-old document, the immediate thought is that it must be outdated or a big issue when it comes down to modern-day decision-making. Kennedy flipping this idea and implying that the age and history of the constitution gives the court an advantage can be shocking.
In conclusion, something that I learned that I already didn't know before watching the two videos was that the Supreme Court has a much larger role in shaping society than I initially thought. Congress makes the laws; however, the Supreme Court has the responsibility to interpret those laws and determine their constitutionality. The most important take-away point about the Supreme Court is the court's power of judicial review, which is the power of the court to review all actions by all departments of government and deem them constitutional or not.
The most surprising thing was how long one could be a Supreme Court justice. The justices are appointed by the president of the United States but stay way longer even after that president has finished their term. Finally, the videos changed the way I thought about the Supreme Court by showing me how important it is for the justices to balance the tasks of following the constitution as well as the law.
 |
| Current US Supreme Court Justices |
No comments:
Post a Comment