In 1789, the passing of the Judiciary Act, the Supreme Court was established under the US Constitution. Thus, 200 years ago a group of politicians created a set of guidelines that could shape the way the court makes decisions. What began with six justices, as set by Congress, now consists of nine members that consult on cases from a lower court and determine whether or not the ruling was per the Constitution. Today this court stands as the most powerful judicial entity on Earth.
After diligently watching Davis Stephens' interview with US Supreme Court Justices, I learned mostly about the process in which I did initially not understand. Based on what I gathered, the process has been around for years, and has evolved to efficiently review only necessary cases. The Supreme Court receives over 5,000 Petitions for Writ Certiorari per year. In other words, requests for the decision from a case seen through by lower court to be reviewed by Supreme Court Justices. Of these 5,000 annual requests, 100 are accepted. Appeals are reviewed by Justices, to then deliberate in private whether or not it will be seen through by the higher court. If the Justices find that the original decision of a lower court may need to be revised in accordance to the US Constitution, it will be accepted. When the Justices go to conference to deliberate a case, they first enter the Old Supreme Court Chamber, and shake hands between all nine members. The appealing party is given the opportunity to pose a 30-minute oral argument, during which the court asks questions that the initial petition may have brought up. As stated in the video, each member has the chance to voice their opinion, each member speaking once before any member speaks twice. It may occur that a Justice changes their original position during conference. After reaching a decision, one Justice is assigned to write an explanation of the decision. Though, any member may submit and opinion draft to explain any of their opposing opinions regarding the decision or reasoning. The case is then revised and finalized. After this period, the decision and reasoning is submitted to the press, carrying the potential to impact millions of citizens.
I also learned that there are various common confusions held by the people of the United States regarding the Supreme Court. Among these confusions, is the belief that Justices come in with a case that they have found and see a problem with and that decisions are often made at the opinion of the Justices. However, it is not their job to impose their opinion, but to uphold the law. During conference, Justices do not try to sell a certain side, but try to bring in all points of consideration to the court. Additionally, it is crucial to remember that the Justices are there at the hands of the people, and they are in a position of trust from the people to apply the Constitution from an unbiased standpoint. As stated in the video, "For this court to intervene, there ought to be something more than just a sense that one of these parties didn't get quite what they should have gotten under the law." This means that the premises of what shall be considered by the court is predetermined and systematic based on the Constitution, not opinion. Another confusion, likely a result from lack of public knowledge, is what occurs when a case is not accepted by the court. In the case of a denial of certiorari, the decision of the Court of Appeals upholds the final decision. However, this does not mean that the Supreme Court agrees or disagrees with the decision, not that they demand it be upheld. By understanding the process and the premises on which decisions are made, we can ultimately conclude that the doings of the Supreme Court Justices are to be reflected on with trust that they have upheld the duty of diligence in applying fair law.
No comments:
Post a Comment