Blog #2

 Supreme Court

Something I didn't know about the supreme court

I didn't know that there weren't always 9 court justices, as the original had only 6 people, and that they kept changing the number. the reason it changed a lot was that it wasn't exactly mentioned in the constitution how many people are needed on said court. The first time it changed was when John Adams was leaving office and decided to try to screw Thomas Jefferson over with the judiciary act of 1801.  They kept increasing the number as the nation got bigger. and then during Abraham lincoln's term, the number rose to 10 justices, to try to keep an anti-slavery majority. Once Lincoln got assassinated, Andrew johnson was trying to undo what president lincoln and the "radical republicans" had done, and as a result, his court was lowered to 7. Once Ulysses s. grant became president, however, Congress gave him 9 members.  

The court has remained as having 9 justices since then, but President Roosevelt tried to raise the justices to 15 in his "great new deal." This attacked anyone over 70 currently serving on the court. he tried to appoint 6 more justices for every current justice on the court for everyone older than 7o years old. He said they "needed help managing tasks." They were all up to date on their tasks. obviously, FDR's proposition met immediate opposition, and it never even made it to congress.

When the original had only 6 people, they divided the U.S. into 3 regions and had the court justices meet in Washington twice a year. The 3-3 split possibility wasn't a huge concern for them because the opinions weren't as polarizing as they are today. 

The most important takeaway

The supreme court is appointed by presidents, and once they're appointed, there's no way to get them out of the court unless they retire or die. That is scary. The current supreme court could end up screwing over women's rights, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. I did a rant about this on discord, actually, and I'm going to copy it, remove the swear words, and paste it here.

so, reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a human life. that's fine and it's a philosophical debate. however, it doesn't matter whether you believe a fetus is equivalent to an adult. it doesn't obligate the mother to sacrifice her bodily autonomy for another.

bodily autonomy is SUPER IMPORTANT in the constitution's right to privacy, and that's protected by the constitution. this was decided in Griswold v Connecticut, which granted the right for married couples to buy and use contraceptives without the government's interference. It also was decided in McFall v shrimp, and this prohibited the right for anyone to force anyone else to donate body parts, even if it's to save another. It also was decided, of course, in roe v wade.

let's pretend you're a perfect donor for a child who needs bone marrow to save their life. in this scenario, the child will die 100% if you don't donate. no other person on the planet is a close enough match to save the child's life. if you were to decide you didn't want to donate your marrow to save the child, no matter the reason. if the rationale behind the reason was flimsy or unrealistic, or if the child is a genius or prodigy or anything else, it doesn't matter. the decision to donate HAS to be voluntary or it will actually be unconstitutional.

This right is even extended to people after they die! when you get your driver's license, they ask if you want to be an organ donor. I, personally said yes because when I die, I won't need my body parts anymore. I'll be dead. but some people say no, for any reason. if you don't consent to be an organ donor while you're alive, they can't harvest your organs after you die, no matter how useful they may be to someone who needs them. it's the LAW, and breaking that law could have serious consequences. 

the use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from the use of her bone marrow to save a life, in that it must be offered voluntarily. now, you have the right to say that morally, a woman has to carry to term, and not doing so would be immoral. that's a philosophical debate, and anyone has the right to pick whatever side they wish. but LEGALLY? it HAS to be the woman's choice whether to carry to term or not. the decision could be made for the "right" or "wrong" reasons or anything in the middle, but it HAS to be her CHOICE, and protecting her bodily autonomy means that the law has to be on her side. 

that's what being pro-choice means. 

it baffles me that I understand this clearly at the age of 20, but lots of adults who are older and have more experience in life don't get it.

Surprising thing

So what did I find a bit surprising? Probably just how unmentioned the supreme court was in the constitution. Because of how little it was mentioned, it just kept changing because there was no way the founding fathers specified it be. It also was super insignificant at first, and only really became important when human rights became involved. It's also just concerning how many presidents used it for their own personal gain. Something else that I think is a bit shocking is how they only met twice a year initially, and how they all didn't attend all the time. Now the justices eat, sleep, and breathe in the law. It's evolved likely beyond what the founding fathers would've visioned. we don't know what they truly visioned, however, just because it wasn't that specific in how it was to be set up. 

The Original supreme court was so janky and it took almost 100 years to refine it because of how unspecific it was.

How the video changed how I view the court

The video had a bunch of justices sitting in a circle talking about how they all are friends and acknowledge that they try to see each other in good faith. They all shake hands before each session and realize they all have a common goal of making the country better. It makes me just wonder how true their statements are. the video is very obviously old, and it makes me wonder if things have changed. the supreme court saw each other as humans then, and politics today remove the humanistic aspect. Politicians just seem to want to control, and they don't even look at the other side. No one ever thinks of why the other person thinks and feels the way they do. That's going to be a huge problem as time goes on. I don't honestly think the video changed how I view the court as much as it signaled that my views of the supreme court will evolve as time goes on. Right now, I'm not that big of a fan, but perhaps in the future, that will change. It all depends on who is in it. I hope eventually, human rights won't be a concern that the court deals with.