Blog Post #3

  Through reading the “SCOTUS History” article from HISTORY, I had the opportunity to learn new information about the Supreme Court’s history including how many chief justices they have had in the past, when the supreme court was established, and information on some of their cases that I had not heard of before. Though I already knew that the president appoints chief justices to serve on the supreme court and it is approved by the senate, the clear cut information provided in the article was a sufficient refresher.

    What I think is the most important take-away point when considering the Supreme Court information provided in the article was the fact that it could not always be a fair way to rule on cases if a president with certain political leanings has the opportunity to provide more chief justices during a term than his predecessor in another party. A prime example of this is former president Donald Trump’s presidency where he appointed three supreme court justices. These were Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

    Though Biden’s administration has not confirmed any Supreme Court Justices, on account that they serve for life, he still has the opportunity to if any of the justices were to pass away. The system is ultimately unjust due to the fact that not every president has the same opportunity to provide their own personal suggestions for the Supreme Court which preside over numerous highly influential cases per year. Coming down to pure chance, different presidential administrations do not have the same opportunities to invoke change if they feel the need to do so. 

    However, this is not the only way the system of the Supreme Court is unfair. It has recently become public knowledge that Justice Clarence Thomas has been receiving luxury vacations for over two decades by billionaire and staunch Republican Harlan Crow. Taking these trips and other exorbitant gifts under the table is illegal. Federal law prohibits officers of the judicial branch from accepting gifts from donors that are looking for sway or influence in court in return.

    Though the law does not quantify or specify what qualifies as a gift meant to be used as an influence tactic, Thomas and Crow are currently under the public's eye in what seems like a severe breach in federal law.