Transcription
Hey everybody, welcome back. You know, sometimes the Supreme Court makes rulings that are unpopular, but you can do the popular thing and smash that like button. Remember that the Constitution says that federal judges have life tenure, subject to good behavior, so they can hold their jobs for the rest of their lives—no getting fired, no elections. The Judiciary was set up this way so that it could maintain its independence from the other branches. Once a federal judge was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, he would have his job for life, subject to good behavior, thereby keeping the independence of the courts.
One consequence of this is that it allows for the possibility that the Court's decisions could stray from public opinion and the current political climate. Their independence allows the court to deliver controversial or unpopular decisions, and this can lead to debates about the legitimacy of the Court's power. I mean, think about it: justices aren't democratically elected; they hold their job for life. And remember, their most significant power is judicial review, which isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. Not only that, but the court gave itself the power. Just from that, you can see why there could be questions and debates about the Supreme Court's power. Now add to that the court issuing rulings that are unpopular with a wide segment of the population, and it just throws fire on that debate.
This section is called “The Court in Action,” so let’s turn our attention to the process of the court hearing a case and making a decision. After the court accepts the case, each side presents their arguments to the court, primarily in the form of written briefs. Additionally, people not directly involved in the case also can write briefs called Amicus Curiae briefs, which literally means “Friend of the Court.” They’re submitted by parties that are interested in the outcome of the case and they want to sway the court to consider their input. Most commonly, Amicus Curiae briefs are submitted by interest groups and the federal government. By the way, in this context, when I say “federal government,” it really means the executive branch and the Justice Department, and they pretty much always try to influence the Court’s decision through Amicus Curiae briefs.
Months later, oral arguments take place at the Supreme Court. The lawyer representing each side presents their case to the justices, and they are peppered with questions by the justices. Within a few days, the justices meet in private and discuss the case and hold a preliminary vote. Nothing is final until the court publicly releases its opinion, though, and there are numerous stories throughout history of justices changing their mind during this time, sometimes even changing the outcome of the case. But after the initial vote, the Chief Justice assigns one of the justices the task of writing the opinion of the Court—a.k.a., the majority opinion. It’s the one that’s legally binding in all your acquired cases. This is what we refer to as the Court’s holding. That opinion doesn’t become the majority opinion, though, unless a majority of justices are willing to sign it. So often, the opinion goes through numerous revisions until it’s written in a way that five justices are willing to sign. This process of revisions and rewrites takes months before the opinion is officially announced by the court and becomes case law.
Sometimes a Justice in the majority will also write a concurring opinion, which agrees with the outcome but offers different reasoning. For example, maybe they think that the court should have gone even further in the case and ruled even more strongly than they did, or maybe they think that a different part of the Constitution provides the better rationale for the ruling. And unless the case is unanimous, there will be a dissenting opinion written by justices on the losing side of the case, offering their constitutional arguments about why the majority is wrong on this issue. These opinions are often trying to convince future judges of the right way to look at the issue and sometimes even provide Congress or states with ideas of how to limit the impact of the ruling.
And lastly, the court occasionally issues a per curiam opinion, which is a brief, unsigned opinion. These are pretty rare and really only occur when there’s an issue that’s extremely time-sensitive—you know, like the time the Supreme Court had to decide who won the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. True story. The case was called Bush v. Gore.
On that note, that’s it for this one. Until next time, this has been a Money Production. Thanks again for watching. Like button, subscribe, bring a bell, ultimate Ro-packet—all up to you. But no matter what, I appreciate you, and I hope that you’re having a great day today, and I will see you in the next video.