• Shaun Blakemore Stevenson

Comm Law Weekly Words

This week we watched this video about the Supreme Court Justices and how they go about doing their jobs. It was very interesting, discussing the ways in which the Justices are appointed (often by Presidents looking to "make their mark"), the way they receive and choose cases to review, and the way they discuss/review the cases themselves. As opposed to my prior belief, it was said that the Justices rarely ever work together as a full nine-person unit on a particular case.

The Justices (at the time of the video's making) all seemed predictably intelligent and considerate. They tackle very real, very important issues and make rulings that will go on to affect the country as legal precedent.

I was intrigued to find out through the video that the cases they don't take are so numerous. They mentioned that people will falsely report on the cases they choose not to take as having been an "upheld" decision by the court. Interestingly, this is not the case because the cases they refuse hold no legal precedent. They, to my understanding, are treated as a case neither upheld nor overturned by the court: simply overlooked/not reviewed officially.

The court seemed to all be amazingly respectful to each other during their interview and admitted coming to disagreement often, but always respecting each other's viewpoints on matters. This was good to know for me, because the typical stereotype of government officials (admittedly usually congress members, in our minds) is that they'e all just as rude and self-centered as lawyers, and enjoy nothing more than disagreeing for the sake of nothing more than stubbornness and argument.