Blog Post #2 History and Workings of the U.S. Supreme Court

 BLOG POST #2   About the history and workings of the U.S. Supreme Court using this 20-minute video as a jumping off point — Part I and Part II. 

 Reflect on these questions:

• What did you learn about the Supreme Court that you didn't already know? prior to watching the videos, my understanding of the Supreme Court was very limited to the constitutional amendments, and basic court knowledge. However, looking into the deeper details, it was very interesting to look at the internal argument and opinion-writing phases. I come to find out that it's not just the standard cross examination of the councilman(women) and the bench, like you see in the movies, instead, the justices frequently use the presenting attorney as an "post office box" to debate complex legal theories with each other.  

• What is the most important take-away point about the Supreme Court?  The Supreme Court's authority is entirely predicted on institutional trust rather than physical enforcement mechanisms. Unlike the legislative or executive branches, the judiciary commands no military or police power to enforce compliance. Its power comes from an "unspoken contract" where the American people and the other branches of government justly to expect its decisions. If the public ever loses faith in the courts, honesty or fairness, the court system stops working. It's real power is just the trust it has built up over generations

• What was the most surprising thing you learned? The most surprising thing to me was how private the voting is, and how passive the court has to be. First, when the nine justices go into the conference room to debate and vote. On cases, they are completely by themselves. No law, clicks, no assistance, and no secretary's oil out in the room. Second, I was surprised by how much they have to wait around for cases. A mayor or Senator can wake up and decide to fix a problem right away, but the Supreme Court can't do that. They have to sit back and wait for citizens to bring oil world problems to them do a lawsuit before they can even make a ruling. 

• How did the video change the way you thought of the Supreme Court? The videos, definitely open my eyes! I used to think of it as this intimidating robotic institution that just looked at laws mechanically. Seeing justice Ginsburg admit that she was incredibly nervous during her first argument that she couldn't even eat. Lunch reminded me that hey are real people. It also changed my view on how secretive they are because they have to light out every single reason for their decisions in public documents, the really isn't a "secret inside story." it made me see the less like a political black box, and more like a group of real human beings trying to figure out how abstract constitutional principles apply to messy, real-life situations.