Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The On the Hill: Breaking Down DC podcast is a collection of sharing more about what’s happening in DC without the bias, ways for you to get involved with the US government, and interviews with friends, colleagues who can help pull back the proverbial curtain of Washington, DC. Katherine Getty, host of the OTH podcast, is a 10-year Washingtonian who lives and breathes politics.
Katherine Getty 0:01
Hi, and welcome to the on the Hill podcast with me your host, Katherine Getty. Each Thursday, I'll peel back the curtain of what happens in Washington, from breaking down current events without bias, to interviews with fellow political nerds, and even and maybe most importantly, ways for you to get involved with our US government. Welcome back to another episode of The on the Hill podcast with me your host, Katherine Getty. Today's episode is another setting the stage episode and we are going to finish with the three branches of government with everyone's favorite, maybe not, but everyone's most talked about as of late, the judicial branch. Today's episode, I'll cover the founding, what is it rooted in the role of the Supreme Court, the structure and schedule, and then dive into the significance and maybe some of the things that have changed over the last few years? So let's start with what's the basis, if you guess the US Constitution, you would be cracked the Supreme Court is, you know, there was some there's overview of what the Supreme Court would look like, in the Supreme Court is really tied to traditions and of the three branches, arguably has the closest resemblance to its original form. Interestingly enough, you know, I said, its basis is in the Constitution. But it really took help from the legislative branch to give it some structure. In the first bill that was introduced in the United States Senate was the Judiciary Act of 1789, which really gave some some meat on the bones of what the Supreme Court looked like. The Act itself divided the country into 13 judicial districts, which were, in turn organized into three circuits, the Eastern, middle and southern. And the Supreme Court was always set in the nation's capital. And interestingly enough, at its founding, had one chief justice and five Associate Justices, it now has one chief justice and eight associate justices. Well, we'll talk about structure a little bit later. You know, as I noted, that it continues to really look very similar. And I think that's by design, that it continues to kind of be that fair arbiter of, of the truth. And I think everyone has decisions they'll point to and say, I like this one. I don't like this one. But let's first before we get into how we feel about the the Supreme Court talked about it's wrong. It breaks down into a few areas, one interpreting the Constitution. So if it's being debated on is this constitutional, Supreme Courts going to decide it. They also do judicial review. So this is a way they kind of review laws passed by Congress, and actions taken by the executive branch. This power was established, established in Marbury versus Madison allows the court to strike down laws or executive actions it deems to be unconstitutional. So you'll hear that that piece a lot. And then the last kind of bucket it falls into is the final court of appeal. The Supreme Court serves as the final court of appeal and the US judicial system. We've definitely been seeing over the last few weeks, some of the court cases for President Trump or you see different decisions, some of the state decisions that are appealed and appealed and appealed. They may end up in the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court has the ability to pick cases which we'll talk about a little bit later. But they are the final quarter of appeal. So they interpret the Constitution. They do judicial review on actions of the President or actions executive branch or actions by Congress. And then there are the final court of appeal. So what is the structure? We talked about a little bit earlier that originally it was one chief justice and five associate justices. It's now one chief justice and eight associate justices. Interestingly enough, and I think maybe something we're very familiar with, is the appointment process. So justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate minder back to when we talked about the Senate episode, that they have that approval of cabinet level positions and Supreme Court. This is a part of that. There, the Supreme Court justices term is life term. So in some of the information I was reviewing before this episode, it talks about the good behavior and if they're in good behavior or feeling good, I think that's kind of the old timey way of saying Were they competent to be still be on on the Supreme Court? Maybe I'm adding my own personal opinion on it, but they serve life terms. And the schedule of the Supreme Court begins the first Monday in October and goes through the Sunday before the first Monday. Not October the following year. But the core is typically in recess from late June, early July until that first Monday in October. And a lot of the decisions that are pretty can be considered like high stakes controversial, will always come out towards the end. So you see, like late June, you're seeing like some of those cases being released or the the decisions being released. And then the Supreme Court is leaving. And that's I would argue, probably by design. How does someone get selected to be a Supreme Court justice? So the President nominates a candidate, and it's definitely changed, I would say in the last 20 years. And that's just from me being paying attention. I think, you know, you continue to see Circuit Court judges, you see, you know, people that are in public service, typically, you know, oftentimes DC courts. So while the President nominates a candidate, the Constitution doesn't specify qualifications for justices such as age, education profession, or native born citizenship. A justice doesn't even have to be a lawyer or law school graduate, but has to be trained in the law. Not sure how you can be trained in law and not be a lawyer or law school Sue, that anyone knows, let me know. But I think that's an interesting piece of it. And that Senate confirmation process, I think we've all become pretty aware of it over the last few nominations. I think it really in the 80s and 90s, you saw Robert Bork, you saw Clarence Thomas, those nomination processes, I think the with it being an I would argue maybe it being televised, changed how we viewed who should be on the Supreme Court how it should be on the Supreme Court, because there was much more attention towards that process. I think, good, bad or indifferent, it becomes some sort of a political process. And I'd argue that's probably not what we want in the long run. But it is pretty emblematic of where we are as a country. So once someone's nominated, they go through the process. They definitely they meet all the senators before they'll go through hearing process, they'll give their opening remarks, and then they basically just answer questions for a really, really long time. It is, you know, anywhere from How do you feel about a certain issue? Or how have you handled this or tell me more about why, you know, oftentimes Supreme Court nominees don't answer on what's maybe in front of the court at the time, because there's a possibility that they will be a part of the decision making process. And I think that's probably the right the right call. I think the we now have a background on the history and the structure and selection process. But the significance of the Supreme Court really lies in the impact on our society. These court rulings from civil rights to individual liberties to governmental powers, shape how we as Americans show up every single day, that legal precedent, you know, what they decide and how it impacts our courts, that they must the lower courts must follow and shaping the interpretation. Application of laws is huge. That checks and balance piece. They are a check on the other powers of government, you know, that we talked about earlier how they are reviewing the they're the, you know, judicial review, they can strike down Ha's, or decisions taken by or actions taken by the executive branch. That's huge. And I think we've definitely over the last few years. And maybe this harkens back to what I talked about when it's everything is become a lot more political is there is more of a sense from Americans of an ideological divide. Now, is that present? I don't I don't know the Supreme Court justices, you only see kind of how they write. And, and I think there's definitely a concerted effort by the current Chief Justice John Roberts, to really kind of navigate these political waters. I think that as a country, we have been this political before and we have come on the other side. It is why I believe so much in things like this podcast, because we need areas where we're learning about what is the structure, what's the history, why is it important, so that we're able to engage more. You know, I think other trends you'll see at the Supreme Court are, you know, maybe a lack of public confidence,
the confirmation battles like I referenced before, these are all things I hope swings back on the other pendulum, and we can figure out steps for that is more A positive. I liked when the Supreme Court was kind of just making their decisions and taking steps forward and ensuring that laws were done correct. And now, both sides of the aisle see it as a political tool. And that's my own personal opinion. But I think that's probably pretty true. One final thing is some of the key concepts and words you might hear when it's late June and decisions are coming out, is the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion, the majority opinion is endorsed by as you guessed it, the majority of justices. And the dissenting opinion is those who disagree. And they can write a dissenting, basically overview of what they what they think. And they outline their reasons. These are always super interesting to see kind of where the justices are on a certain how to interpret a certain certain law or perform judicial review or whatever it may be. And the last is starry decisis. This is the principle of following precedent guides the court's decision making promoting stability and consistency. You may have heard starry decisis a lot within the last year because of the overturn of Roe v. Wade. So, Roe v. Wade was decided in the 70s. Then it was overturned last year. And the interesting pieces is that starry decisis of okay, this has been decided by the court we will continue on this path was really flipped on its head. And it calls into question, well, this law justices, you know, flipped on their head on other things. As a reminder, you know, the justices have to have a case on which to decide from, I think it's definitely something to continue to watch and see, does this become some sort of a trend? I think I would encourage everyone as much as I think it's easy and this political culture to really jump to, to decisions on how the court will decide, may it be on, you know, the next Roe v Wade, or next decision sort of like that, or maybe the next Trump case that's coming up in front of the Supreme Court. Let's allow the Supreme Court. This is now entering personal opinion. My hope is that the Supreme Court kind of finds its way back to center. And definitely, the hope is that presidents on both sides of the aisle ensure that they are nominating people that are really thoughtful, and can execute on the judicial review and understanding what interpreting the Constitution and being that Court of Appeal without the political nature, which I think is definitely infiltrated every aspect of our lives. So it would not be surprising. I think, let's continue to watch as this current term comes and develops, be on the lookout for June. You know, next time you see the selection process happening, you already know President is going to nominate someone that's going to go through Judiciary Committee, you now understand some of the key concepts being majority opinion dissenting opinion, starry decisis. And some of those recent trends that divide the confirmation battles that feel all consuming and a lack of public confidence. Let's, as we have this information, watch the next Supreme Court decision and you have a little bit more information. Thank you for tuning in to this week's episode of The on the Hill podcast, I was happy to be able to share a little bit more about the Supreme Court, a part of the judicial branch. I'll definitely dive into the judicial branch a little bit more, but I think the Supreme Court is a really good place to start. If you want to learn more about me, you can find me on Instagram. My handle is Katherine Getty. You want to learn more about the podcast itself? It's on the Hill DC podcast. Tune in next Thursday for another episode of On the hill and thank you so much.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai