The Constitution of the United States created three branches of government with the intention to bring about separation of power or checks and balances. The Executive branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws. Congress is power by our constitution to make the laws. The Supreme Court of the United States is one of the three branches of the United States government constitutionally created known as the Judiciary Branch. The purpose of this court is to interpret our federal constitutional law. The court comprises the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices nominated by our Presidents with Senate confirmation. The appointment of the members of the Supreme Court is life term tenure unless the members retire, resign or are impeached. The composition of the members of the Supreme Court includes conservatives, moderates and liberals as we know to be. As a result, my assumption of the members’ interpretation of the law may be based on their philosophies, ideologies and political affiliations. What is unique about this institution as compare to Congress whose decision makings are being televised, members of the Supreme Court make their decisions with their one vote in secrecy. Having no idea of what is going on behind closed doors in the supreme courts makes their decisions look to us as impartial.

As we are about to read Law and Political Order in which we are looking at the Supreme Court, my question to all is “Are members of our Supreme Court sincerely committed to carrying out their functions as stipulated in our constitution? Other questions each of us should be asking ourselves include: Under whose regime are the members of Supreme Court appointed? What is/are their philosophies, ideologies in interpreting the law? What is their commitment to members of Congress specially members of the Senate? What is the Supreme Courts demography? I believe we may be answering these questions along the way and may be making our individual analysis, and decisions based on our findings. This will help us as we try to pursue the communities, individuals, groups, institutions and organizations that are affected by the decision of the members of the Supreme Court. As I read the Gideon’s Trumpet by Anthony Lewis, and did my assignment on court observation at the District Courts in Arizona, I began to shape my mind on what actually happens in our judiciary system with regards to social justice. With United States preaching DEMOCRACY all over the world, my question is, “Is the United States supposed to set better example in terms of protecting the Rights of Its People?” Our contributions as students in bring about judiciary changes in our social settings will create a positive impact in the history of our beloved United States of America.

Thanks to All.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. abdelrafat says:

    Change is very necessary but change in the judiciary is a component, I believe, to be at the end of this race. If we are to shape the way justices make their decisions, we must first shape laws that justices are to interpret. Advocating to the legislative branch by amending or proposing laws/bills would be the first step to a truly democratic country. The income gap in our country is massive thus, the lobbying efforts by the “richer Americans” have been, and will continue to, rise in order for those Americans to seek benefits for their interest. The middle/lower class Americans can only hope to amount to the “richer Americans” financial lobbying by having greater mobilization movements throughout our country. There are of course other forms of changing policy but group mobilization seems to be the poster child for the middle/lower class. Laws are shaped by the people who pay for them and this creates laws and exceptions that middle class Americans frown upon. But do nothing about it. Reverting back to your point about justice’s secret votes, I agree that we are unable to determine if justices are voting as a matter of law or if justices are voting for their constituents. I am a firm believer that no decision is made without some sort of biased, whether a justice will breach a moral/ethical value that they may hold will vary depending on the justice. Really enjoyed your post and the topic thanks.

    • imdebock says:

      Thanks for responding to my blog. I appreciate your concern for the middle/lower class Americans, a group that I belong. What I would like you to know is that the class system that originated in ancient time is still in existence. As a result, the rich is getting richer and poor is getting poorer every day. This is the economic inequality we are faced with in our society. As the middle class are working harder to climb the ladder, so the rich people are lobbying to survive. So the question of closing the income gap is difficult to achieve. There is no law or bill that will change the income gap and whether we mobilize or advocate for change, class and economic inequality will never change. As you rightly said that there is no decision without bias behavior, this is why I think Justice Scalia is advocating for the interpretation of the text since common law is a creation of our justices ideas based on precedents. If we interpret the text that guides us all, we will minimize the bias decision making by our justices. Because if the text states the punishment of killing someone is death, that is it. I believe every judge will be moving in the same direction of interpreting the law. Once again I appreciate your concern for us all.

  2. mbstanton says:

    A response to Supreme Court of The United States – Scotus
    Having been prompted to educate myself further in my knowledge of the Judiciary branch of our government, I have read a few relevant readings including “The case of the Speluncean Explorers” as well as watched a few films relating to the issue. For this reason, I can appreciate the questioning of the morals, integrity, and honest disclosure of our own Supreme Court Justices. I can see the reasons why you feel it necessary for the decisions on court cases to be a public matter, much like that of the congressional conferences in which the Senate and the House of Representatives make important declarations on a live television feed. However, I want to challenge this idea with a question of my own. Consider what our Congress does for the citizens of the United States. Congress consists of a collection of men and women elected to make important public decisions on laws and legislature, a process that often displays a rather black and white form of reasoning. While these decisions impact us regularly, Supreme Court Justices are challenged with the obligation to interpret the law and make life and death decisions accordingly. I understand the issues with interpreting the laws to begin with, but what’s more is that the significant decisions being made could result in bad ramifications to the individuals. Being individuals that make important decisions, including ones covering capital punishment cases, disclosing their decision may be in poor taste as it could potentially cause anger among citizens who disagree with the ruling. The issue herein lies that threats would be made against the justices and compromise their decision making even further. I appreciate the perspective that you provide on this issue and can see how having a transparent system of justice could be beneficial. However, it is another item of deep consideration. Thank you for your though-provoking writing.

Leave a Reply