The Supreme Court

Certiorari: The Misrepresentation by the Media

United States Supreme Court Building

The U.S. Supreme Court has been established since the founding of our Constitution, but did not establish its authority until Marbury v. Madison (1803) when Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review. Since then, the government and its constituents have looked to the Supreme Court for decisions on a variety of matters. The court receives over 8,000 petitions each year, but only hear a handful of them. The process is called certiorari and it is the power of the Supreme Court to pick and choose what cases they want to hear. 

Justice Clarence Thomas

When speaking on certiorari, Justice Clarence Thomas said, "I think some of the public reporting on what we say confuses what we've done in the cert process. When we don't take a case, often it is reported that the Supreme Court today upheld or the Supreme Court ordered when in fact we have done no such thing." This really stuck out to me because it gives a better of the understanding of what really happens in the certiorari process and how the media misrepresents it to their viewers. 

The Differences in Interruptive Philosophy 

One thing that irritates me about the media coverage on the Supreme Court is how they try to politicize it. They try to label and associate justices with political parties and I think that is an inaccurate representation of what actually goes on in the court. Each justice on the bench does not serve or is influenced by political parties, but have their own unique interruptive philosophy. Justice John Paul Stevens highlights this by saying, "We disagree, as you may know, on fundamental things from time to time, but we really all share the same basic objective and we respect one another's good faith in trying to achieve that overall goal." 

Justice Antonin Scalia

On one side you have the conservative/originalist interruption such as Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. When describing his interruptive philosophy, Justice Scalia said, "I don't think the Constitution has become any more clear or means anything different from what it originally meant." 

On the other side, you have the liberal interruption of the Constitution that can be seen in the rulings of Justice Ginsburg. When describing her interruptive philosophy, Justice Ginsburg said, "you don't have the Constitution that was written in 1787 or even in 1791when the Bill of Right was added. We have the post-Civil War amendments and the 19th amendment. Remember that 'We the People' was composed of a very small part of the people, in fact, when inhabiting these shores, no woman could vote, people were held in bondage, Native Americans were not treated as citizens of equal stature and dignity. So those people do count among 'We the People' our Constitution we embrace today."

Post Appointment

Roberts Court (Newest Supreme Court)

One of the most surprising things I have come to learn about the Supreme Court is how long it really takes for the new justices to settle into their new lifelong appointment. Some justices have said there is a three year rule, meaning it takes three years for their new appointment to the bench to not seem overwhelming and strange. Other justices have said that it takes five years for a new justice to really settle into their new position. Justice David Souter said, "I think its probably fair to say that you really start doing your work here [the Supreme Court] when you forget that you are here and that does take a few years." I found this so surprising because when they are appointed, Supreme Court justices usually have 30 or more years of experience in the courtroom. They have usually spent a couple years on the Federal Circuit and I feel like they should feel more prepared for this job given their prior experience.