An Inside Look at the Supreme Court

From the Citizens United ruling that corporations are people and as such can contribute to political campaigns to its impending ruling on health care, the U. S. Supreme Court has been making big news recently. But that wasn't always the case. In fact, in its early  years, the highest court in the land didn't have any cases and had difficulty finding justices.

"It didn't seem like a place that was going anywhere," says Linda Greenhouse, who covered the supreme court for the New York Times for 30 years and won a Pulitzer Prize for her efforts. "The court is the author of its own story. Its role has been largely self-created."

Greenhouse, who appeared to discuss her new book The U.S. Supreme Court: A Very Short Introduction at Politics and Prose tonight, said that while Article III of the Constitution ordered the creation of the court, that document specified nothing about its operation. There wasn't even a mention of a Chief Justice to lead the court. The idea of a Chief Justice had to be inferred from the article that calls for such a position to serve in the case of an impeachment trial of a president.

Until the 1920s, the Supreme Court simply heard whatever cases came to it. However, in that decade, the justices began setting their own docket, deciding to hear some cases and rejecting others that failed to meet their standards of questions of constitutionality.

"That really was the key to making the court the institution it is today. It's the court that's setting the country's legal agenda," Greenhouse said.

So how does the court decide which cases its should hear? To some extent, its decisions are an outgrowth of issues that are affecting the country. "The justices don't live in the bubble that we think they do. They know what's going on," Greenhouse said.

Just as times change, so obviously has the criteria for judges. Initally, religious affiliation was a concern. Today, however, it isn't a consideration. For example, on the current court, there are no practicing Protestants. The court is made up of 6 Catholic members and 3 Jewish members. "The Founding Fathers would be turning over in their graves," Greenhouse joked.

Geography used to be a big deal. But today all 9 justices come from the Eastern part of America and received their training at either Harvard or Yale.

Initially, judges came from the political world. But Sandra Day O'Connor, the first female judge (currently 3 of the justices are female) who retired in 1981, was the last justice with political experience. Today, 8 of the 9 justices served as federal judges before their appointment to the court. In the Warren Court of the mid 20th Century, none of the justices had ever served as federal judges.

Of course, judges are appointed for life by the president, but must be confirmed by Congress. Today, that confirmation cannot be taken for granted. "That's changed the whole narrative," Greenhouse said. As an example she cited the recent confirmation process for President Obama's choice, Sonia Sotomayor. Initially, many Republicans were prepared to vote for Obama's choice. However, GOP leaders asked the National Rifle Association to rate Sotomayor. Since Sotomayor had not handled any gun cases in her court, she could not receive a high rating from the NRA. This in turn led GOP support to fade and few Republicans voted for confirmation.

One of the main charges against the court today is that it is too political, a charge some feel is supported by the number of cases decided by a 5-4 vote along strict political lines. Greenhouse said she isn't really surprised that the majority of Republican judges hold different views than their 4 Democratic counterparts. "The justices are chosen by the president and the country is pretty sharply divided," Greenhouse noted.

Other critics want to do away with life-time appointments for justices contending that when the Founding Fathers designed the court, they never considered that appointments would serve for 35 or 40 years. "It has taken on a kind of different meaning," Greenhouse said. The author noted that all other modern democracies have either age or term limits for their justices. "Initally, I was against it, but it is interesting to consider," Greenhouse said.

Greenhouse said she isn't surprised about President Obama's recent comments that he didn't believe the Supreme Court would overturn the health care plan he promoted. Those comments started a political firestorm with Republicans claiming the President was interfering in court matters. "There has always been struggles between the branches of government," Greenhouse said. "The relationship is not static and it has never been static. There is a struggle for supremacy. Sometimes one branch is up; sometimes another branch is up."

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
Of course, many members of the large crowd that packed Politics and Prose had the fate of the health care law on their minds. Last month, the Supreme Court held 3 days worth of oral arguments on the question. And how does Greenhouse think the court will rule? Will they, as so many feel, vote along political lines and reject the health care package endorsed by President Obama and passed by Congress. "I believe the law will be upheld," Greenhouse said. "I actually feel they are going to vote on the law and the law is going to lead them to uphold the statute."