The United States Supreme Court is already well into its 2012-2013 term, which began in early October. These next few months of rulings promise to stoke controversy not only about the cases but also about the court’s unique role in the nation. Though one of the most controversial subjects for this term has already been argued, that of affirmative action, a decision has yet to come. Many other issues are slated to be taken up by the court, including gay marriage and overseas wiretaps.

Last year’s term had two “blockbuster” cases. The constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare,” was upheld, and many parts of Arizona’s controversial “show me your papers” immigration law were struck down. The Obamacare ruling is notable because of the conservative Chief Justice John Roberts’ uncharacteristic deciding vote for the liberal side in a 5-4 split. The ruling on affirmative action is expected to be close as well.

Affirmative action in universities, the process of selecting applicants based on race in order to benefit underrepresented groups, was called into question by a prospective University of Texas student who claimed that she, being white, was rejected from the university because of her race. Although affirmative action in universities had been upheld by previous courts, the makeup of this court makes it doubtful that a decision will be reached without a close vote among the eight participating justices (Justice Kagan recused herself).

With every controversial decision of the court, however, comes concerns over the judicial body’s role in government and allegations of “judicial activism,” the decision to rule based on personal beliefs rather than law, on the part of the justices. Many have also questioned the concept of judicial review, the court’s self-given ability to strike down legislation it deems unconstitutional.

These concerns about the nature of the court are only amplified by the way that the justices are picked: they are nominated by the President, ratified by the Senate, and in no way elected by the people.

History teacher Mr. Jay Scofield explained the reasoning behind this strange-sounding setup: “There was a reason they [the Founding Fathers] created unelected judges: so that they’d be inoculated against public opinion as opposed to doing what’s popular, because what’s popular and what’s just are often incongruent.”

Once appointed, justices serve for life while maintaining “good behavior.”

Mr. Adam Bransfield, who teaches American Government, pointed out an interesting consequence of appointing justices for life: unpredictable changes in ideology. “Justice Warren Burger in the ’50s was a very conservative justice, appointed by Eisenhower, [but] continued to preside over the most liberal Supreme Court we’ve ever had. It just goes to show.”

The upcoming rulings may be affected by the fact that this court also differs greatly from those of previous years: three of the nine justices are women, and, for the first time, no Protestants are serving. This court marks the first with a Hispanic woman as well.

Senior Andreas Chai pointed to this diversity as a source of what he perceived as liberalism. He said, “The fact that it’s becoming a little more liberal could be due to its more diverse makeup.”