How the Norms of the Supreme Court affect our Citizens

As most American citizens know, the Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. While this is true, most of the general public does not know the actual actions and policies of the court itself. Many think of Marbury vs Madison and the Dred Scott decision when they think of the Supreme court rather than what the court represents in present time. The public tends to overlook the general duties of the Supreme Court, as well as some of the most important norms of the court.

Secrecy, Seniority, and Precedent are all norms of the Supreme court that allow this high ruling court to do its job so effectively.

Secrecy is the concept that keeps the conflicts within the justices out of the public eye. The Supreme court has the reputation of being a very restricted institution. For examples, not many justices tend to interviews and most reporters/journalists are prohibited from roaming the corridors of the Court for stories. I believe that the Supreme court has lost a good amount of general interest and appeal to the general public due to this norm. The Court seems to remove itself so far from the public that there are hardly any opportunities for the people to feel involved or informed in anyway. Of course there are some things that must be kept from the public, but if more contact and opportunities for people to feel more connected to the Supreme Court could lead to an increase in interest from our citizens.

The next norm is Seniority, and it is exactly what it sounds like. This norm determines the office spaces, seating arrangements, and other accommodations based on the justices seniority. This is a norm that most people can appreciate and respect. This concept is one that values the wisdom and experience of the justices who have been on the court longer than the younger justices. This policy helps support and add to the credibility of the Supreme court and the fact that it is the highest ranking court in our country.

The last norm is precedent, which is also a straight forward idea that the Supreme court is expected to stand by their previous techniques and tendencies when deciding new cases. This is a very tricky but important concept that the justices must always be aware of. If they make a decision that can be considered to conflict with another decision previously made, this can be seen as an “overruling” based on old decisions. Our nation and society experiences so much change over time, so making the same decisions as the past can sometimes be a bit difficult for the justices. Different norms and events can change the perspective and judgement from justices, so being aware of both past decisions and the public’s opinion on certain issues is key in terms of the precedent.

The norms of the Supreme Court are all concepts that have the ability to change in order to potentially create a better relationship with the public. If the court can start to be seen as a more open and relatable institution to the people, hopefully the view of the Supreme Court can be shifted in a positive direction. These norms provide the opportunity for small transitions the Supreme Court can do to achieve this goal.

Sources

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3046&context=wmlr

Kelly Gough says:

April 22, 2018 at 12:31 pm

Klein,

Thanks for a great post!

You bring up a great point about some of the ignorance most American citizens have when it comes to the “actual actions and policies of the court itself.” Prior to reading this chapter, and blog post, I was unaware of such intricacies and fell into that category of ignorance.

The concept that secrecy is one of the key norms of the Supreme Court is intriguing, and could potentially be why so many American citizens know so little about the actual proceedings. As you pointed out, it is no coincidence considering the Justices wish to keep major conflicts out of the public eye. I wonder why this is the case? Isn’t an informed public better for democracy? Why don’t the people argue for more transparency? I agree that this transparency could lead to people feeling more interested and involved in the Supreme Court.

Another concept you bring up is precedent. I struggle with this norm because I believe most situations are truly unique as well as old decisions becoming outdated to the modern world. I worry that too much reliance on precedence can lead to unrealistic or unfair outcomes.

Thanks again for the clear and interesting post!