Supreme Court Notes

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's function begins with petitions requesting action, considered by nine justices. These cases range from individual convictions to presidential powers.
The court is a model for high courts globally, notable as the most powerful judicial body.
Justices deliberate privately; their legitimacy comes from the Constitution, and their power depends on public trust in their independence and impartiality.
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to protect liberty, maintain the union, and uphold the rule of law.

Justices are portrayed through group portraits upon new appointments.
They address human dilemmas, averaging sixteen years of service, sometimes exceeding twice that duration.
Presidents aim to influence the court through nominations but face justices' asserted independence.
The court's composition mirrors public sentiment via presidential nominations and Senate confirmations.
Confirmed justices are accountable to the law, the institution, their conscience, and the public.
New justices may find the experience overwhelming initially, needing several years to fully adjust and perform their duties effectively.

The court defines the boundaries of governmental power, and has the ability to check the powers of the president, Congress, and state governments.
The court inevitably faces controversy but has generally maintained public acceptance over two centuries.

In 1801, the Supreme Court was temporarily housed in the unfinished capital.
Chief Justice John Marshall established the court's power by invalidating a Congressional act as unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison.
Marshall's leadership established the Constitution as a tool for nation-building, earning the court public respect.
The Dred Scott decision under Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, which denied Congress's power to prohibit slavery and rejected black citizenship, weakened the court's authority.

The Civil War led to constitutional amendments that abolished slavery, defined citizenship, and granted voting rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment prevents states from denying due process or equal protection under the law.
The Fourteenth Amendment is considered a second Bill of Rights, protecting individuals from state power excesses, complementing the original Bill of Rights that protected citizens from the federal government.

The modern court interprets the Constitution in line with John Marshall's tradition to solve national issues.
Justices like Kennedy, Stevens, Scalia, and Ginsburg reflect on the court's history and interpretive philosophies.
The Constitution evolves through amendments, addressing historical exclusions like women's suffrage and the rights of enslaved and Native American populations.
We the People now includes previously marginalized groups.

The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions annually but accepts only a small fraction for full consideration.
Justices, supported by law clerks, individually review cases to decide on their merits.
The court focuses on legal questions, assessing the constitutionality and proper application of laws by lower courts.
Weekly conferences involve selecting cases and voting on argued cases.

Every petition receives individual consideration, regardless of who files it.
Denial of certiorari does not set a legal precedent.
Public reporting on certiorari decisions sometimes misrepresents the court's actions.
The Supreme Court intervenes only when there is more than just a sense that one of the parties didn't get what they should , and not for every perceived legal misstep.

The first conference is a significant moment for new justices, involving participation in resolving difficult issues.
Justices engage in a handshake before meetings, promoting collegiality.
The Chief Justice initiates discussions by outlining issues, ensuring every justice speaks before anyone speaks twice.
Views on cases can change during conferences, influenced by colleagues' arguments.
Justices may develop fixed views over time, based on their written opinions.

The court maintains openness through its published opinions, dispelling notions of secrecy.
The court addresses issues brought to it, rather than proactively seeking them out.
The Supreme Court hears cases in public, with lawyers presenting arguments.

Oral arguments offer lawyers an opportunity to highlight critical points and engage in a dialogue with the justices.
Arguments are a conversation between the justices facilitated by the attorneys, rather than merely a series of questions and answers.
New lawyers should focus on understanding the justices' concerns and adapting their arguments accordingly.
Arguing before nine justices requires managing multiple lines of thought simultaneously.
Oral arguments can influence the court's decision-making process, applying abstract principles to real-life situations.

After arguments, justices vote in private and assign the writing of the majority opinion.
Law clerks assist in the opinion writing process, conducting research and drafting documents.
Justices may write dissenting or concurring opinions.
The drafting and revision process can take months, involving compromise and potential shifts in opinion.
The court announces decisions and releases opinions by the end of its term in late June.

The public information officer releases opinions to the press, which explains the court's decisions and their implications.
Reporters rely on the court's written opinions, which can vary in length, to inform the public.

The Supreme Court's decisions are generally followed, reflecting public trust.
The court's role in protecting the unpopular and upholding principles contributes to national freedom.
The court's power lies in its earned trust and the good faith of its justices.