The Supreme Court and American Society

Many commentators focus upon what might be called the "popular" aspects of the Court: the clash of personalities throughout Court history, the different styles of various justices, and the interaction between presidents and their Court appointees. These are "popular" aspects in the sense that they are what popular journalists focus upon. They revolve around personalities, rather than ideas, and they have little to do with the intellectual processes of the Court. They are the substance of personal stories and are what interest most people.

Much is said about the political process aspects of the Court, such as the way in which the Court conducts its daily business: its meeting schedules, the makeup of its staff, the selection of each justice's support staff. Statistics are available as to how often individual justices have followed the advice of their clerks and what influence these clerks have had on the decisions of the Court. This is of great interest to those who study political and administrative process, but ultimately has little bearing upon the decisions and opinions of the Court.

The preceding paragraphs may come across as unnecessarily harsh criticism of the focus of many observers of the Court, and maybe it is. There is value in studying the administrative processes of political institutions, for they often have a tremendous influence on the decision making processes of those institutions. However, they are less an

. . .
ncreased with each passing term, the number rejected has also increased. This power over which cases to hear has enabled the Court to limit itself to important constitutional questions. It has also enabled the Court to avoid deciding controversial issues until it feels that the time is proper to do so. The Court has formulated rules and doctrines which further limit the cases it hears. It will only hear those controversies which are "real" and in which the parties are "adverse," having adverse interests in the outcome of the controversy. The Court will not issue advisory opinions for Congress to follow where there is no controversy. The parties in the controversy must have standing to sue; that is, a plaintiff must show an actual injury to a legally protected right and must show that all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted. This last requirement is really not one made up by the Court to limit the number of cases presented to it, however. The rules of standing come from traditional doctrines in civil and criminal procedure and are followed by all courts, not just the Supreme Court. Again, O'Brien's inclusion of them as examples of how the Court has sought to limit its caseload displays an ignorance of legal d
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, David O'Brien, American Society, Court Court, Court Legal, Norton Co, Constitution Past, Court O'Brien's, Supreme Court's, supreme court, court decisions, american society, court american, Court American, supreme court american, american politics, legal doctrines, individual justices, decisions opinions, popular aspects, decision processes, american politics york, politics york ww, york ww norton, influence decision processes,
Approximate Word count = 1596
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)

More Essays on The Supreme Court and American Society