THE SUPREME COURT | Episode 4 excerpt | PBS

Check out this preview of The Supreme Court airing on PBS February 7, 2007 (check local listings). Episode 4: The Rehnquist Revolution investigates how the court has developed in more recent times, with a particular view to the development of the court under the leadership of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

"I do think there's a special responsibility that comes with being the Chief to look out for the institutional stability, security and prerogatives of the Court," says Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., "And I'd be surprised if Justice Rehnquist's view on a number of areas didn't change when he moved from an Associate Justice to being the Chief Justice."

PBS airdate: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 9:00 p.m. (check local listings). For more information visit www.pbs.org/supremecourt

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• PBS
• WNET
• Supreme
• Court
• Chief
• Justice
• Roberts
• Day
• O'Connor
• Thirteen
• Rehnquist
• Marshall
• legal
• constitution
• judicial
• v.
• law

[IllustriousHypocrisy]

You are mistaken. The creation of a Supreme Court is clearly spelled out in Article III of the United States Constitution.

The Judiciary Act created the lower federal courts.

[msclguru]

That is not correct, either. The sentence in question says specifically, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court...."

In contrast, consider the wording of Aritcle 1, sec. 1:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..."

If Article III doesn't create the Supreme Court, then Article I doesn't create the Congress.

There is thus no valid Congress operating within the Constitution, either.

[sealhunta]

umm, not having a supreme court would be unconstitutional. It's our right to have the third branch of government

[SupremeCourtOfUSA]

hey hes ure uncle, how does he feel about screwing up the inaguration? lol i almost fainted when i saw (live) i was like "WOW what??" lol. poor roberts

[neothomist1275]

That one sentence in the third Article ALLOWS for the creation of the Supreme and District courts. They had yet to be created -- by Amendment. An Act was used for simple majority passage and to bypass the certain veto of the State legislatures -- which is also why those details were left out of the original Constitution (keep in mind the First Judiciary Act was twice the length of the Constitution).

[neothomist1275]

It would have required an Amendment to create the Supreme Court, but Madison and Ellsworth did it with the First Judiciary Act (1789). Congress is not authorized to create a Supreme Court. There is no valid court operating within the framework of the Constitution.

[RavenStarGlazer]

yeah i guess... and it is true, if you believe me

[lsatep]

He's your uncle, that's amazing if it's true.

[pspguy28]

Wow that is awesome that he is your uncle . . . I am a law student and would love to meet him or at least get his autograph ;)

[RavenStarGlazer]

John Roberts is my uncle and I remeber before he was nominated and he was exactly the same! I find that strange. Anyway, I absolutely idolize O' Conor, she is an extriodonary woman.