• Constitutional Roots of the Court
• A Court Not So Distant From Politics
• Shaping American Lives & Freedoms
• The Decisions That Have Changed America

In the Constitution

Article III of the Constitution defines judicial power as "vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." While possessing original jurisdiction over cases affecting "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party," history has shown the Court to primarily exercise it's appellate jurisdiction of hearing cases from the lower courts.

Judges "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." The "good behavior" language has been interpreted as a life tenure for judges.

Processes of the Court

Justice Nominations

The President of the United States, under Article II of the Constitution, has the power to nominate justices who are appointed "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." While the President may nominate anyone to the Court, that nominee must face a sometimes strenuously thorough confirmation process by the Senate. Beginning in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nomineee is questioned, their answers shedding light on their general political ideology and where they would stand on specific landmark cases. Though this process sheds light on the nominee's political leaning, the President's nomination in itself is often testament enough.

The Judiciary Committee votes on whether the nomination should continue into the full Senate. If it votes positive, the Senate votes; a simple majority is required for confirmation or rejection. The President may withdraw nominees from consideration any time before the actual confirmation vote. Also, the full Senate, when considering the nominee, may filibuster in order to prevent confirmation; however, this has never been done. The second half of the twentieth century has witnessed a radical change in how quickly nominees move through confirmation; whereas nominees were traditionally hustled through the process, now Senate hearings judge character and affiliation on top of merit. The President may take an alternative approach and appoint temporary justices while the Senate is in recess, though it is not a typical practice due to it being a controversial undercut to the Senate.

Hearing and Deciding a Case

Cases heard before the Supreme Court are primarily brought forward by petitions for writs of certiorari (latin: "to be searched"), or "cert", and if the case is brought from the highest court at state level, as it usually is, it must only be reviewed by the Supreme Court if it concerning a federal or constitutional law. The loser from the state court is titled the petitioner, while the winner is called the respondent, their case reffered to as Petitioner v. Respondent and is casually reffered to as Petitioner, unless the petitioner is, or is currently of, a government body, in which case Respondent is used as the casual case name. The cert is only granted by the Court if the case falls into three categories: 1) if it conflicts with interpretation of a federal or constitutional law, 2) if it is an egregious departure from precedent, or 3) if its to resolve a decision that conflicts with a previous Supreme precedent.

The cert petition is voted in a completely private conference among the 9 members of the Court. The cert requires a vote of 4 in order to proceed to briefing, if not, it ends. To deal with the high volume of cert petitions each year (~7,000), in 1973 a "cert pool" was instituted; currently participating are all justices except Stevens. The pool is a combination of all participating Justice's clerks who are randomly given a cert and must read through, summarize, and advocate/oppose the hearing of the case to the Court (clerks, and not the Court, selecting which cases will be heard combined with the breach of Court secrecy which occurs has brought the pool under criticism since its conception).

If a cert is granted petition by the Court, the case is heard for oral argument (2 week sessions each month, October-April); during this time, both parties file briefs on the merits of the case and with consent of the parties and the Court, amicus curiae briefs may also be filed (these briefs from "friends of the court" seek to inform the Court of a legal or non-legal point which may assist in a decision; these "friends" are often advocacy groups such as the ACLU). During the oral argument session, both parties have half an hour each to argue their side, the Justices interrupting when necessary. If a party requests an oral argument from an amicus cuiae, it is given during this time.

Following the oral argument, a decision is made based on majority. The most senior Justice of the majority opinion assigns the initial draft of the Courts opinion to a Justice and this, as well as any dissenting opinions of the minority, circuulate before an official announcement is made on the case.

Landmark Decisions

• Marbury v. Madison (1808): Decided by the Marshall Court, it set the precedent of judicial review in the United States, giving the Supreme Court the power to decide on matters of constitutionality. In the words of Marshall, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."

• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): When the state of Maryland attempted to tax the federally chartered Bank of the United States, the Marshall Court decided that, although Congress does not have a written power to establish a bank, it does have to ability to delegate taxes and spending. From this, it was ruled that, since federal laws have supremacy over state, Maryland could not legally tax the bank. The decision created a balance between federalism and state power.

• Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856): The controversial decision of the Taney Court established that people of African descent, slave or free, could never be citizens of the United States, and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories. The decision was later overturned with the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, abolishing slavery and guaranteeing equal rights and due process.

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954): One of the most well-known of decisions, the Warren Court concluded that "the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Though social segregation persisted, this decision overturned the 1896 decision of Plessy v. Ferguson by making it a federal crime to segregate within the public domain, particulary in Brown, public schools.

• Miranda v. Arizona (1966): As a result of this Warren Court decision, when a suspect is put into custody, they are given "Miranda rights," notifying them that they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say can be held against them in court. Stemming from the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the Court decided that such rights were in need of safeguards, while Constitution textualists argued that the Court was creating rights.

• Roe v. Wade (1973): By far the most famous, and infamous, Court decisions of all time, Roe established that abortions are permissible for any reson a woman chooses up until the "viability" of the fetus. In this case, viability meant the fetus was able to survive without the mother (typically 28 weeks). After viability, an abortion could be performed when needed to protect a woman's health. Since the decision, states have created laws that work around viability, though, the basic premise of Roe still stands as law today.