![]() |
| The Power of Trust: My Takeaways on the Supreme Court |
Before watching these videos, I thought of the Supreme Court as a distant institution that only appeared in the news when a major decision was announced.
What surprised me most was learning how much discussion, debate, and tradition goes into every decision long before the public hears about it.
One fact that really stood out to me was that there have only been a little over 100 Supreme Court justices in American history.
Supreme Court Justices 2026
When one justice compared being appointed to the Court to being struck by lightning, it made me realize how rare that opportunity is.
There are only nine justices at a time, yet their decisions can affect millions of people.
I was also shocked to learn that it can take a justice around three years just to adjust to the workload. From the outside, it is easy to assume that the justices immediately know how to handle everything, but the videos showed that even they need time to grow into the role.
Another thing I did not know was how many cases reach the Court every year.
Learning that roughly 7,000 cases arrive annually made me appreciate how selective the process is and how much responsibility comes with deciding which cases deserve the Court's attention.
What changed my perspective the most was seeing how the justices interact with one another.
The tradition of shaking hands before every conference meeting surprised me.
In a country where disagreement often leads to division, that simple act shows that respect can exist even when people have different opinions.
The Constitution
As a journalism student, I found the oral argument process especially interesting. Lawyers have only 30 minutes to present their case, and the justices use that time to ask difficult questions.
It reminded me that behind every legal issue are real people and real consequences.
My biggest takeaway is that the Court's power does not come from force.
It comes from trust.
After watching these videos, I no longer see the Supreme Court as just a group of judges interpreting a 200-year-old document.
I see it as an institution that depends on public confidence, thoughtful debate, and the responsibility of the people who serve on it.




