Three Period History of the Supreme Court

The second time period, dating from 1867 to 1937, dealing with the government to business correlation and the laissez-faire approach by the Court in matters of commerce will then be explored. Finally, the period from 1937 to 1960, in which individual civil rights were at the center of the Court will be looked at. The understanding of these time periods will bring a clearer representation on how vital the Supreme Court has been to the success of the United States.
             The prevention of states from "flying off" and establishing a Union of their own was the most important goal of the Court after the initiation of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the greatest illustration of this came from Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793. It was in this suit that two citizens of South Carolina brought an action against the state of Georgia for the recovery of a debt and members from Georgia refused to appear for defense, leading the Court to declare that states were indeed suable, rendering a judgment for the citizens of South Carolina. The decisions made by the members of the Bench following this decision generated the notion amongst the American people that the Court was an echo of the Constitution when it agreed with them, and the voice of subjective prejudice when it did not. Regardless of this conception, however, union of the states at the time was the ultimate desire of the Court's members who knew that the newly drafted Constitution could not suffice the nation's future on its own, and the Court needed to determine what view of the Constitution was best calculated to preserve this union. .
             Perhaps the greatest challenge in the maintenance of the unity desired by the Supreme Court members in the transition from the 1700's to the 1800's was the uncertainty of the Court itself. It was at this time that many issues were presenting themselves regarding how future interpretation of the Constitution's text would transpire, and high level appointees, such as John Jay, felt that the Court could not acquire enough "energy, weight, and dignity" to play a significant part in the understanding.