History and Workings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is highest court in the United States; constantly analyzing and interpreting history into the modern era of America. Consequently, making history with every question and decision they make based off of one document-
The Constitution.
When reflecting part 1 and part 2 of the videos, I had a full circle moment. For context, I watched these exact videos in my Government class 4 years ago to the day. The Liana going into senior year of high school would say I learned what certiorari means which is "to be informed".
But, what I did not know is how to be informed? I learned in order to be granted certiorari four of the nine justices must vote yes. Also known as "The Rule of Four". But, in terms of the death penalty five of the nine justices have to vote yes in order to grant stay.
This video allowed me to see the justices from a different point of view and am able to empathize understand their calling on a deeper level. Think about when re-reading or re-watching something you pick up on a detail you may have never noticed before which is exactly what the people of The United States do and pose upon the justices to evaluate on a daily basis.
They construct a theory based on the interpretation of The Constitution. Justices are constantly testing through discussion the theory based on an argument of Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. Overtime, a perspective or parts of an argument may change over time perhaps even in sixty minutes.
The most important takeaway of the video is The Supreme Court essentially being the modern day hybridization The Symposium and The Agora. The courtroom floor is taken by the modern philosophers through the form of a discussion that is available for the public to witness and call attention to but, is guided by appeal and the opening argument of a lawyer.
These philosophers are there to improve the theories of the constitution by disputing or adding an argument through a discussion posed through questions in order to provide clarity to the laws put forth amongst the American people.
Following the discussion, the court makes their decision. One of the justices has to write a holistic explanation as to the outcome.The most surprising aspect I learned about is the amount of writing entailed specifically in opinion writing.
Depending on the case some justices might be writing two documents at one time such as the opinion of the court which requires collaboration with the other justices in the majority and the dissent and their own opinion piece (if they so choose) separate from the opinion of the court.
Which begs the question of how do justices determine who is writing the opinion of the court?
