Date: November 9, 2013 Topic: The Supreme Court and Public Opinion Aim: How does the Supreme Court interact with public opinion? Do Now: Multiple Choice Questions.

Characteristics of Supreme Court Nominees Acceptability. Gender. Ideology. Litmus Test – standing on issues. Activist v. Restraint. LINK MORE LITMUS

How would interest groups impact nominees? Advertising, lobbying, op/ed pieces. Talk shows. Lobbying the Senate.

U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Process Stage 1: Presidential Nomination Stage 2: Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Stage 3: Full Senate Vote WHITE HOUSE REVIEW Certification MEDIA Influence FBI Investigation INTEREST GROUP Influence Stage 4: Oath of Office?

Supreme Court Is Insulated From Public Opinion Brown v Board of Education (1954) Class Action Suit – why was this a class action suit? Class Action Suit Do you think this was popular with the American public?popular Do you think the Supreme Court was insulated from public opinion? Yes, the Supreme Court took an activist stance to overrule the Plessy case.

Other Ways the Supreme Court is Insulated. Supreme Court justices are appointed – they are not elected. They control their own docket – set their own agenda. The public has limited access to court proceedings. Court is in session from early October until late June. Court is in session from early October until late June. 9 – THE NUMBER 9 (NINE) RULE OF FOUR

Supreme Court – Restrictions that Keep Them From Straying Too Far From Public Opinion The Litmus Test – where they stand on the issues. The concern over reputation – credibility and legitimacy of the court. Justices can be impeached.

Types of Opinions When an opinion is written (a decision), it often takes months and many drafts. ◦ Majority Opinion – justices in the majority must draft an opinion setting out the reasons for their decision. Majority Opinion ◦ Concurring Opinion – justices who agree for other reasons can give their opinion. Concurring Opinion ◦ Dissenting Opinion – justices who disagree with the opinion write their side. Dissenting Opinion

... the school's interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech "reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use"... cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more.

“school speech" doctrine should apply because Frederick's speech occurred "at a school event"; second, that the speech was "reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use"; and third, that a principal may legally restrict that speech—based on the three existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school's "important—indeed, perhaps compelling interest" in deterring drug use by students.