Shifting Perspectives: What I Learned About the Supreme Court

Today, I watched a 2-part video about the Supreme Court, and my understanding of the system has grown and changed. I found out that all Supreme Court justices must be appointed by the President. This wasn’t something I had really thought about before, but I remembered that after Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, President Trump appointed the new Justice. I then realized I did know that fact—though I used to think there were other ways a justice could be appointed, like through the Senate or a committee selection process.

Caseload and Selectivity

I also learned that the Supreme Court receives more than 100 new cases each week, adding up to about 7,000 a year. I had no idea the caseload was so large, and it made me realize just how selective the Court has to be in choosing which cases to hear. This new information has shifted my view of the justices. I used to find them intimidating, probably because they hold so much power, and their decisions can have a huge impact on the country. However, it was refreshing to see their sense of humor and hear them speak vulnerably about their first days on the job. It made them seem more human and relatable, which wasn’t something I expected.

Granting Certiorari

An additional fact that stood out to me is that when it comes to granting or denying certiorari (which means deciding whether to review a case), the Supreme Court gives equal consideration to every petition, whether it’s from a high-priced lawyer or someone writing from prison. This was surprising because I assumed that those with more resources might have an advantage. Knowing that everyone gets the same amount of consideration gave me more respect for the Court and its commitment to fairness.

Interpretation and Evolution

Another surprising fact I learned, and probably the most surprising, is that justices aren’t allowed to bring issues to the court like the President can—they have to wait for the public to bring cases to them. I always assumed that being able to bring personal issues to the court would be a perk of the job, but that’s not the case.

My biggest takeaway is that while the Constitution hasn’t changed, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it has had to evolve to fit our current society. For example, when the Constitution was written, Native Americans weren’t considered citizens, so the phrase “We the people” didn’t apply to them. Now, as we’ve progressed, the phrase includes all U.S. citizens, regardless of race or ethnicity. This really shows that the Court’s role is not just to interpret the law as it was written centuries ago, but to apply it in a way that makes sense in today’s world.