Overview the history of the Supreme Court (p.234-236 in the text), paying attention to these things
- the differing visions for the Court among the Framers
- the significance of the Marshall Court
- the historically-viewed mistakes of the Court
- the significance of the Warren Court
The process of appointing a Supreme Court nominee is the same as what we have examined before regarding judicial appointments. However, the harshness of the critique of the nominee is much greater.
- legal expertise
- party affiliation
- judicial philosophy
- acceptability to Senate
All of these are unofficial requirements to be a justice of the Supreme Court. There are no formal qualifications. But because of the scrutiny of being appointed to the highest court in the land, the Senate is usually much more deliberate about confirming a nominee.
Confirmation hearing of Justice Elena Kagan
Procedure of the Supreme Court
- October - June/July
- prepare for block of cases, hear block of cases, decide and write opinions on block of cases (rinse, lather, repeat)
- law clerks do tremendous amounts of work for justices
- Court decides which cases it will hear during term (original and appellate)
- Justices must decide which appeals they want to take up (minimum 4 justices)
- Court grants certiorari to cases it will hear
- Justices prepare by reading case briefs, studying law, researching and reviewing precedent
- Court may consult amicus briefs in preparation for oral arguments
- Oral arguments before the Court (30 minutes per side); Justices pepper with questions
- Justices meet behind closed doors to review/discuss case
- Chief Justice assigns duty of writing majority and (if necessary) dissenting opinions
- Many justices often offer concurring opinions
- Court opinions are detailed legal explanations of reasoning for the decision that was reached
- Opinions of case become part of Court precedent
