Blog Post #2: The Supreme Court
When I think of The Justice System™, I picture the classic court setting and confusingly specific wording of contracts. It all feels like it’s supposed to be almost clinical and rigid— legal and removed from emotions or personal attachments. Yet the videos changed my view to see court as something deeply passionate.
"Does oral argument make a difference? Of course it does, it has to." I was surprised to hear this but I completely agree (especially now with AI taking over our rhetoric). The laws put in place are meant to reflect the values of the people. I don't think emotion should be removed from the court because it's the true foundation of our country (hard to start a Revolutionary War with nonchalance).
I always assumed the final decision wouldn't have any objections but the inclusion of disagreements is unbelievably critical to maintaining cohesive justice across the country. How are other judges meant to rule on future cases if they can't clearly understand the reasons?
This can lead to decisions such as, 'if I close the door, no one will see the messy room so… problem solved!' But if their reason is to build good habits or avoid pests, closing the door doesn't solve it. Getting those detailed reasons also incentivizes not obedience, but loyalty.
This trust was my ultimate takeaway: the Court's power depends entirely on the public's trust. People know that if there's an issue and they're able to present it to the Supreme Court, justice will be served. I feel like that's a hard-earned reputation that's so ingrained in the people, that it’s not something anyone considers could be taken for granted.
"Does oral argument make a difference? Of course it does, it has to." I was surprised to hear this but I completely agree (especially now with AI taking over our rhetoric). The laws put in place are meant to reflect the values of the people. I don't think emotion should be removed from the court because it's the true foundation of our country (hard to start a Revolutionary War with nonchalance).
I always assumed the final decision wouldn't have any objections but the inclusion of disagreements is unbelievably critical to maintaining cohesive justice across the country. How are other judges meant to rule on future cases if they can't clearly understand the reasons?
This is something I think everyone is at least a little familiar with. It's the same branch of asking my parents "why" when they tell me to clean my room. If the reasoning is that guests are coming, I could infer several things, from the technical to the abstract.
From the technical: When we have guests over, my room should be clean.
From the abstract: Messes aren't socially presentable.
From the abstract: Messes aren't socially presentable.
This can lead to decisions such as, 'if I close the door, no one will see the messy room so… problem solved!' But if their reason is to build good habits or avoid pests, closing the door doesn't solve it. Getting those detailed reasons also incentivizes not obedience, but loyalty.
This trust was my ultimate takeaway: the Court's power depends entirely on the public's trust. People know that if there's an issue and they're able to present it to the Supreme Court, justice will be served. I feel like that's a hard-earned reputation that's so ingrained in the people, that it’s not something anyone considers could be taken for granted.
Comments
Post a Comment