Ever since 1789, when it was first fully established, the United States Supreme Court has had a profound impact on our country and the laws that impact it. Initially seen as insignificant to the running of our government, the decisions made in this court have created radical and widespread change in our legal system and the day to day lives of hundreds of millions of people.
The court had a voice of its own since its inception. The earliest example of this was in the case Chisolm v. Georgia (1793) under the leadership of John Jay, where the Supreme Court allowed individuals to sue states (later partially overturned by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution.) The most significant early action of the Supreme Court was the establishment of the precedent of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison (1803), which gave the ability for the Supreme Court to determine whether laws were constitutional.
The Supreme Court is intended to be the branch of government with the most distance from partisan politics. The Supreme Court justices, of which there are currently nine, are appointed, not elected, and given the position for life as a way to prevent justices from making decisions based on popularity. Thomas Jefferson said, “For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.” Many would argue that this is no longer the case, as Justices are often considered either “Conservative” or “Liberal,” with votes across party lines becoming more and more uncommon.
Numerous decisions in the Supreme Court effect is every day. Some examples of these are Gideon v. Wainwright, which gave the right for all to have an attorney even if they can’t afford one, Miranda v. Arizona, which gives us our Miranda rights, and Roe v. Wade, which prohibits states from outlawing abortion. The nine seats of the Supreme Court are extremely powerful, and will continue to determine the Consitutionality of laws and the path of our nation for the coming future.
If you're interested in reading more about the history of the Supreme Court, click here.
In the previous weeks, Facebook has been under some intense scrutiny over its treatment of political ads and other controversial items on the site. The company has recently stated that, though it will begin moderating news sites and commercial advertisers that spread misinformation, it will not censor or delete political ads. Facebook says it will make exceptions for political ads that specifically incite violence.
This brings up many questions about the rights and responsibilities that private platforms have when it comes to the first amendment. Facebook has no legal obligation to allow free speech as the Bill of Rights states it; however, both Facebook and its users benefit from some amount of freedom. Most areas censored on Facebook are non-controversial, such as threats, gore, pornography, bullying, and pages relating to terrorism, but issues of ill-defined “hate speech” and misinformation often gather much media attention.
On the topic of political ads, there are arguments on both sides for Facebook moderating or not moderating. Many claim that, if a politician is spreading misinformation, this is valuable information for the public to know. On the other hand, many also say that it is not right for politicians to mislead the public on such a large scale. Either way, this is an issue that will likely continue to be discussed for years to come. If you are interested in reading more about this topic, click here to read an article.
In October of 2018, President Trump signed the Music Modernization Act, also known as the MMA, into law, a rare case of bipartisan collaboration in a time of unfruitful attempts to govern. The bill was intended to protect songwriters and artists from not being paid due to an arbitrary expiration date- 1972, to be exact- on being properly compensated by streaming services. As President Trump was signing what has been called the “Most Important Legislation in a Generation to Help Songwriters,” Trump was flanked by artists such as Kid Rock, Mercy Me, the Doobie Brothers, Steely Dan, and the Beach Boys.
Eminem and his publisher would not agree on many of these descriptions of the MMA. On August 21st, Eight Mile filed a suit claiming that under this new law, Spotify has infringed on hundreds of Eminem's copyrights. Apparently, a loophole was found in the Music Modernization Act that has allowed the Stockholm-based music streaming service to stream Eminem's tracks without appropriately paying the publisher. This is a testament to the fact that what may seem like a win for one group of people may, in fact, be damaging to another. When crafting legislation or taking action regarding issues such as free speech and copyright, we must think of the long-reaching consequences and search for any way that a policy or law could be abused.
