Ever since the Supreme Court formally recognized the power of judicial review in the landmark 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the be-all and end-all on constitutionality has been the Supreme Court. Informed Americans and readers of SCOTUSblog know that means the court ultimately decides the laws by which we must live, and in that way, it is arguable that nine unelected justices dictate American priorities more so than any president, Senate majority leader, business tycoon, or political pundit. After all, they can override the executive or legislative branches, as well as lower courts and state decisions on federal law, and in recent years have increasingly done so through a "shadow docket” of decisions that are made without public argument or deliberation.For 70 of the 220 years since the Supreme Court asserted its jurisdiction over American law – so nearly one-third of this history – there has been a reliable and consistent platform of discourse about the court (and many other subjects): "The Open Mind," the longest-running series in PBS history and one that my grandfather founded in 1956 and that I have hosted since his death in 2013. From deliberations about segregation and discrimination to litigation surrounding monopolies and anti-trust, privacy in America and the Patriot Act, and blocking citizen accounts on Twitter/X, “The Open Mind” – like SCOTUSblog – has been studiously attentive to Supreme Court opinions, dissents, and what, exactly, this all means for our republic. Along the way, our guests have included a who’s who in constitutional theater, including Justice Stephen Breyer, Judge Robert Bork, Circuit Judges Robert Katzmann and Richard Posner, Supreme Court advocates Floyd Abrams and Neal Katyal, scholars Derrick Bell and Martha Minow, a shaper of contemporary Supreme Court reporting Anthony Lewis, and a new generation of legal academics like law professors Justin Driver, Leah Litman, and Carissa Byrne Hessick.On Wednesday, I will have SCOTUSblog’s founder Amy Howe and executive editor Zachary Shemtob as my guests to discuss the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ideological majority, whether the justices would ever be open to the possibility of reform, transparent ethics standards, the possibility of expansion, and much more.Before then, however, I wanted to share several things that I’ve learned from being part of a series that has spent seven decades covering the court.First is how gradually, and then all at once, history can change on the court. When “The Open Mind” was first broadcast, Chief Justice Earl Warren had headed the court for only three years and would come to herald an unprecedented progressive era on it. This changed with the Burger era, and then dramatically so with the Rehnquist and Roberts courts. Once on the margins of Supreme Court jurisprudence, originalism, in particular, has sought to halt the emerging practice of Living Constitutionalism. In episodes over the past quarter of a century, viewers can see that pendulum swing – at first incremental and then rapid-fire – from a liberal to conservative majority. Yet this was also contingent. Had Hillary Clinton won both the Electoral College and popular vote in 2026, we might be witnessing a liberal era on the court rather than a conservative super-majority.Another enduring subject is cameras in the courtroom. This was one of my grandfather’s favorite subjects to explore. He saw this discussion as essential to Americans' engagement in the branch of government that was becoming increasingly pivotal in deciding the future of their lives. While today there is live audio of oral arguments, I wonder if the Supreme Court had also opened its doors to cameras – as a civic counterpoint to the sensationalistic Court TV coverage – more citizens would have taken sustained interest in the court’s role in our republic. And it is now natural to wonder whether that time may have passed: In today’s era of social media, clips are all too often deployed as ammunition to bolster one side rather than to find common ground.This period also corresponded with the increasingly punitive prosecutions and imprisonment of the American people – which has made the United States per capita the most incarcerated nation in the developed world. Although the court has issued surprisingly few decisions in this regard, the fact that one-third of American families have a loved one impacted in the justice system has significant implications for both federal and state law. In a series of episodes featuring national leaders like Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson as well as local and state reformers, we explored facets of the contemporary justice reform. Our subjects included the death penalty, life sentences, and probation and parole – some areas of the carceral state in which the court has actually spoken.Finally, and returning to my first point regarding historical shifts on the court, one of the things that has fascinated me most – and still does not get enough discussion – is that the composition of the court, and, indeed, the fate of our country, is determined by the status of nine individuals’ health (namely, who dies, and when, and who is president and the senate majority leader at any given moment). Even if one believes life tenure for judges is a good thing, today’s model feels more like royal inheritance than republicanism, especially considering that three of the newest justices were appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term, when he lost the nation’s popular vote.There is, of course, far more to say about the Supreme Court. But I’ll end with an anecdote. In the 1990s, I was not more than 10 years old when my grandfather took me on my first trip to Washington, D.C. to see the memorials and monuments in all their glory. He also arranged a greeting with Justice Breyer, whom he had interviewed as the chief judge of his circuit court before his Supreme Court nomination.After graciously receiving us in his chambers, Breyer sent me off with an autographed pocket U.S. Constitution. I thanked him and probed innocently: “But, Mr. Justice, don’t you need this?” (Although he didn’t respond at the time, I was later told he found this quite amusing – Breyer is well-known for his “professorial” sense of humor.)In truth, we all should be armed with this document and debate often its meaning – clichéd as this may sound, it remains the bedrock of our founding and evolving life as a nation.