I’m most comfortable with the latter interpretation, which has been offered by many, including Whole Foods founder John Mackey.

But there are signs of American exceptionalism that are so common to the point we can miss them entirely.

Let me explain my most recent sighting of every day American exceptionalism.

A couple of weeks ago, I attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. Given that CPAC is the largest annual assembly of the country’s leading conservatives, it’s no surprise many conservative opponents see it as an opportunity to exercise their right to free expression, which they did forcefully this year.

Hundreds of protesters crowded onto the street before the conference hotel. They held signs–e.g. “We are the 99 percent!”–and even got close to playing a baseball game when the starting lineup for the “Tax Dodgers” arrived. (Every player’s jersey had the number 1.)

Sheet metal workers, political activists, government school teachers and many others were there to air grievances against their political opponents. They were angry, scared for their future, and confused how any decent person could not be standing for the policies they prefer. Had the protesters actually met the few gawking conference attendees during the heat of protest, matters may have come to blows.

But it didn’t happen that way, as it may have in Greece or Egypt. In fact, when the two sides met off site, they got along just fine.

I witnessed the unsensational meeting at a noodle restaurant a couple blocks away from the hotel. Near the end of lunch I saw a group of diners wearing shirts bearing the logo of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). AFT is a powerful teachers’ union based in Washington, D.C. Like General Motors and Citibank, AFT is a very well-connected corporation that benefits from the largesse of politicians. AFT supports the election of certain politicians and expects those politicians to ensure there is as little competition in education as possible. Like the automobile or banking industry, AFT is a special interest that lobbies to get the taxpayer money it wants.

The remarkable thing about that lunch is that those wearing AFT shirts were sitting peaceably among gaggles of CPAC attendees wearing bright red lanyards. It was clear political opponents were in the same room, but also that they weren’t enemies.

American exceptionalism there manifested in the unspoken agreement that the restaurant was not a place to settle political disagreements.

You can see similar American exceptionalism every time someone wears an Obama t-shirt in a room full of Republicans or bears signs of a religion among others who don’t share it.

Of course, other peoples are tolerant and civil, but the United States has parlayed its tolerance to achieve exceptional things. The world’s largest economy didn’t happen in spite of the many different and often conflicting ideas among us, but because of them.

Most American exceptionalism is quiet and common by our standards. But that doesn’t make it any less remarkable.

The Boston Caucus Club, led by Samuel Adams and others, and the Loyal Nine were early dissident groups that became the Sons of Liberty in 1765. Ironically, the name came from a speech in Parliament by Col. Isaac Barre, referring to colonists as sons of liberty.

Sons of Liberty groups started in every colony, and each colony formed connections with one another in unity of correspondence and activity. Samuel Adams and Paul Revere headed the Massachusetts group.

The Sons of Liberty was a shadowy, underground organization of men who needed secrecy to protect their identities and their actions. Operating openly would have brought swift retribution from British authorities. Members of the Sons of Liberty included Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, Benjamin Rush, James Otis, and even Benedict Arnold.

Americans resisted taxes imposed by England, citing their rallying cry, “no taxation without representation,” since there were no American representatives in Parliament. Disagreement about who ruled America led to a number of conflicts.

Samuel Adams’ role in the Sons of Liberty was influential, but not fully known, since it was so secretive. Adams was connected to the Boston Gazette, which published many of his articles under a pen name. In its earliest days, the goal of Adams and others was not revolution, but to curb British dominance and taxes in America, asserting their rights as British subjects.

Not everyone supported independence. The Sons of Liberty had to make their argument to the common people, and their writings in pamphlets and newspapers expressed their views on liberty, taxes, and oppressive rule.

Words turned into action, often violent and destructive. Property of the gentry, customs officers and other British authorities often were attacked by violent mobs. In Boston, a mob burned in effigy stamp distributor, Andrew Oliver, and then burned down his office and vandalized his house. Mobs also trashed the house of Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson. Mobs were so strong that British authorities did not dare to stand up against it. They were outnumbered against an inflamed crowd.

Gov. Francis Bernard blamed the violence on Samuel Adams, who he believed agitated the mob by his writings. Adams approved the actions of the mob, but it is doubtful that he directed their actions. In fact, at that time, Sam Adams was endorsing legal and non-violent methods of resistance, such as petitions, boycotts and demonstrations.

The Sons of Liberty in New York declared in December 1773 that anyone who assisted with the Tea Act was “an enemy to the liberties of America” and would be boycotted. Their action culminated the Boston Tea Party, where the Sons of Liberty dressed as Indians dumped several tons of tea into the Boston Harbor.

In September 1765, Adams was asked by the Boston Town Meeting to write instructions for Boston’s delegation to the Massachusetts House of Representatives. He did, and then was appointed as a replacement for a representative who had recently died.

Adams was the main author of a series of House resolutions against the Stamp Act, and these resolutions were more radical than those passed by the Stamp Act Congress.

Samuel Adams was one of the first colonial leaders to argue that mankind possessed certain natural rights that governments could not violate.

Through the work of Sam Adams and other leaders, the Stamp Act was not enforced because protestors forced stamp distributors to resign throughout the colonies. Parliament soon repealed the tax.

After the Stamp Act failed, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, establishing new taxes on imported goods. Although these taxes were relatively low, since England wanted to establish a precedent that it had the right to tax the colonies, Adams and his fellow patriots opposed them because it still amounted to taxation without representation. The Townshend Acts created a customs agency, the American Board of Custom Commissioners, headquartered in Boston.

Adams used the Boston Town Meeting to organize an economic boycott, and he called for other towns to do the same. By February 1768, towns in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut had joined the boycott.

The Massachusetts House sent a petition to King George, and to the other colonies, known as the Massachusetts Circular Letter. The letter, written by Adams, called on the colonies to join with Massachusetts in resisting the Townshend Acts.

This was too much for Lord Hillsborough, the British colonial secretary. He told the colonial governors to dissolve any assembly that responded to the Massachusetts Circular Letter. He also ordered Massachusetts Gov. Francis Bernard to have the Massachusetts House rescind the letter. The House refused. It was Sam Adams’ argument, that they had a right to petition, that won the day.

The Customs Board could not enforce trade regulations in Boston, so they requested military assistance from England. A warship arrived in Boston Harbor in May 1768. The situation was made worse when the captain started pressing local sailors into service. Then, on June 10, customs officials seized the Liberty, a sloop owned by John Hancock. When British sailors tried to tow away the Liberty, a riot broke out. Customs officials packed up their families and fled.

However, it was not violence alone that won victories for the patriots. Many of the Sons of Liberty, especially Samuel Adams, were writers and printers, and their words had more impact than their actions.

Samuel Adams’ words ring true through the centuries. He could be speaking of today’s dependency and entitlements when he wrote, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Once every decade or so a sports star emerges from out of nowhere and captures the attention of people who aren’t regular followers. Jeremy Lin of the New York Knicks is the latest example, and boy is it inspiring. He was a star at Harvard before playing a total of 284 minutes last year for the Golden State Warriors. Ron Artest, aka Metta World Peace, said his memory of seeing Lin play before this past week was that “he used to miss layups on the fast break in Golden State. I know he used to turn the ball over at half court. He was trying to find himself.”

How did Lin go from that to what he’s done in the past week? It’s that old quote that luck comes when preparation meets opportunity. Knicks coach Mike D’Antoni puts his point guards in situations that help them succeed. Steve Nash was considered a bust before he joined with D’Antoni. That, combined with the fact that the Knicks were down to their fourth string point guard was the opportunity. Lin’s lifetime of hard work made sure that he was ready. One more element was involved here and is the reason why he’s succeeding now, but failed last year: confidence. Lin finally believed that he belonged. If you saw the highlights of his game against the Lakers you saw a confident player who believed he was the best player on the court, even though Kobe Bryant was guarding him on occasion.

Some commentators have compared Lin to Tim Tebow. @NotSportsCenter summed it up nicely with this tweet: “Calling Jeremy Lin the “Tim Tebow” of the #NBA would actually be accurate if he went 2 for 17 for 4 points every night.” That’s tongue-in-cheek, but Tebow actually had expectations placed on him. He was drafted in the first round after all. Lin wasn’t drafted and didn’t even get a Division 1 athletics scholarship offer.

The better comparison is Kurt Warner. Warner took over for the Rams in 1999 when the starting quarterback, Trent Green, got hurt in a preseason game. Their head coach cried because he thought such a promising season was over. Like Lin, Warner was put into a situation with offensive coordinator Mike Martz that highlighted Warner’s strengths. He could read the defense and get rid of the ball quickly.

This story is so compelling because it’s a reflection of the American dream. Lin is the son of Taiwanese immigrants. His Dad was obsessed with basketball even though he didn’t even pick one up until he was an adult. He exposed his sons to the game at a young age. Lin was passionate about basketball. He was competitive, he was smart, and he worked hard. All he needed was confidence and an opportunity. Mike D’Antoni, who was fending off rumors that he would be fired just five days ago, gave him both of those things.

We should cherish these moments. They come along very rarely in such a high profile way. But they should act as inspiration for people throughout this country, and in fields beyond sports. Reject Harlan Dalton’s caution to adjust your expectations because “we live today in an era of diminished possibilities.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Work hard. Be passionate and confident. Compete. Take advantage of the opportunity when it comes.

When I bring my clothes to the dry cleaner, I pay them cash upfront. They probably outsource the actual cleaning to a different company. I always go to the same place because it’s convenient and I know what to expect. It may be a dirty business, but it’s low risk and relatively predictable.

A presenter in an episode of Shark Tank that I watched this weekend had a similar business, but a bit more glamorous. EZVIP offers online access to pre-paid event tickets and tables. They operate out of Miami, but are expanding into a few other cities soon. Think of an Expedia for club events. It focuses on a niche, but it also has three characteristics that make for a good business. There is a reason why the Sharks entered a bidding war for this entrepreneur.

Collect money up front. If you want to go to an NBA All-Star weekend event, say one where Kevin Durant, Daymond John, Lil Jon, and Fabolous will be attending, you can reserve a table for $7,000 today. The event is on Feb. 24. EZVIP gets the money today and pays the club sometime between now and Feb. 24. There’s no risk of non-payment and EZVIP gets a little bit of float. Low risk. Cash rich.

Low capital requirements. What does EZVIP have to spend to get the relationship with the club? Probably not much. They’re giving the club or event more publicity and ensuring some attendance in advance. All plusses for the club. EZVIP probably doesn’t need a line of credit or a whole lot of cash in the bank to sign up that first club or promoter. All they need is a website and some publicity. Eventually, they’ve earned repeat customers through word of mouth.

Contrast this with a manufacturer. Let’s say you want to start a furniture company and you want to do manufacturing in-house. You’ve got to put up the money for the equipment to build the furniture. You need a building to do the work and a warehouse. You need money for the raw materials that go into the couch. You’ve got to pay the designers and the workers who do the fabrication. All before you’ve made a sale. For EZVIP they could pay a salesman on commission so there would be virtually no up-front costs. No hard inventory. No building leases. Plus, they can ratchet business activity up and down depending on demand, achieving variable capacity and expenses. EZVIP is everything the furniture manufacturer is not.

A Moat. In this case, EZVIP probably has exclusivity agreements in place with the clubs they work with. Unlike similar businesses in the travel sector like Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, Priceline, Hotwire, CheapoAir.com, CheapTickets.com, Hotels.com, Travel Zoo, and on and on. Those companies work with many of the airlines and hotels. EZVIP only works with specific clubs and promoters and probably doesn’t allow other them to work with another pre-sale online company.

Businesses that have these characteristics are great businesses. Other businesses are trying to tap into this. There’s a reason why Starbucks has introduced a pre-paid card. They get the cash up front, and they help to deepen their moat. Since I got my Starbucks card six months ago, I’ve only been in a Caribou Café once.

It’s not easy to have these three characteristics. If capital requirements are low, it’s hard to find high barriers to entry. EZVIP seems to have it because of the relationships and expertise of its founder. That’s unique. Another characteristic of a great business is that any idiot can run it. That’s not the case here. Still, this is a winning idea and this business is going to make a lot of money.

As a writer of numerous articles and pamphlets, Adams fanned the flame of freedom in the hearts of American patriots.

A lot of his early writing was done anonymously. It had to be, because the British would have arrested him at once if they knew he was behind the words that were stirring so many people to action.

And the British had good reason to fear Adams’s words. He was among the first to use the rallying cry of “no taxation without representation,” an appeal that was understood in the heart of every colonial.

Adams drew heavily upon English political theorist John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. This included the idea that people must resist any encroachment on their rights.

The British Navy’s pressing Americans into forced military duty led Adams and others in 1748 to start the Independent Advertiser, a weekly newspaper that printed many of Adams’ political essays.

Adams wrote a circulating letter in 1768 prompted the occupation of Boston by British soldiers. This resulted in the Boston Massacre of 1770, where five civilians were killed.

Adams and others started a committee of correspondence system in 1772, which linked Patriots throughout the colonies. Continued agitation resulted in the 1773 Boston Tea Party, and the American Revolution.

After Parliament passed the Coercive Acts in 1774, Adams attended the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, where he was an important figure in the formation of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Massachusetts Constitution.

What stirred so many colonials to revolt against their British rulers was a succession of taxes. Until then, taxes in the colonies were local.

A big motivation of new taxes by the British was their need for revenue after the French and Indian War, also known as the Seven Years War, ended in 1763. England was in debt, and it wanted the colonists to pay for British troops and officials in America.

But it just wasn’t the new taxes being assessed by England. It was the idea that, since no colonists were members of Parliament, they were being taxed without representation.

But Adams’ actions spoke as loud as his words. Adams rallied resistance to a number of oppressive acts by the British. The Sugar Act of 1764 was another example of taxation without representation, Adams said. Adams spoke to this in May 1764, when the Boston Town Meeting elected its representatives to the Massachusetts House. Adams wrote the instructions for the representatives. His words included:

“For if our Trade may be taxed, why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands and everything we possess or make use of? This, we apprehend, annihilates our Charter Right to govern and tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain. If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves?”

This really was the first time a colonial assembly went on the record stating that Parliament did not have the constitutional authority to tax the colonists. It was the first formal declaration of the rights of colonists, apart from their rights as British subjects, and it was the first time the sovereignty of England over America was formally questioned.

Adams’ words spread through the thirteen colonies in pamphlets and in newspapers.

Adams wrote, “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.”

In 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which required colonists to pay a new tax on most printed materials, from newspaper to court documents. Passage of the Stamp Act produced an uproar in the colonies, and Adams’ words of taxation without representation echoed again.

A number of assemblies in the colonies passed resolutions against the Stamp Act. But it was Sam Adam’s writings that called for a boycott of British goods to put pressure on Parliament to repeal the tax.

Sam Adams continued his writing and exhortations with his work with the Sons of Liberty, as Americans marched toward war and freedom.

Who was Saint Valentine and why was he sainted? There are a couple of different options. The best-known legend goes back to ancient Rome. In this story, Emperor Claudius cancelled all marriages and engagements in Rome around the year 270. He felt that this would encourage more men to leave home and join the military. Saint Valentine, a Roman priest, continued to perform marriages in secret. He was executed for breaking Claudius’ rule and, legend has it, he fell in love during his imprisonment. He is said to have written her a last love letter signed “From your Valentine.”

Whether you’ve been hit by Cupid’s arrow or are still waiting for him to strike, changes are you’re more than familiar with him. We know he has the power to grant love, but few of us know how. Cupid was the son of Venus and Mercury and, as the son of the goddess of love, he holds special sway over our romantic inclinations.

Detractors like to say that Valentine’s Day was made up by greeting card companies to drive business. In truth, people have been exchanging Valentine’s with their sweethearts for hundreds of years. This grew in the 1840s and Esther Howland from Massachusetts being the first to mass-produce Valentine’s Day cards. The Greeting Card Association says that 25% of all cards sent each year are Valentines.

Although mass production certainly gave the holiday a boost, Valentine’s were being sent long before cards became so commonplace. The oldest known Valentine which still exists is in the British Library in England. Written in 1415, it is a poem the Duke of Orleans wrote to his wife while he was imprisoned after the Battle of Agincourt. Let’s not blame 19th century commercialism for something which goes back much longer. It’s about the love, not the money!

Why do we choose to celebrate romance and love in the middle of winter? Well, it was believed that this was the time of year in which birds chose their mates, which meant that romance was in the air. We humans could follow the example of those literal lovebirds and pair up with our sweeties, letting them know how much they are appreciated.

This Valentine’s Day, remember to show the special people in your life how much you love them, it doesn’t have to be romantic! If you’re still waiting for Cupid to stop by, this might be your lucky year!

Was Lincoln really a simple country lawyer? This is a legend that has endured for years, but was it true or created? It seems as though a great deal of this comes from Lincoln’s law parter William Herndon, who wanted to boost his reputation at the expense of Lincoln’s. It’s true that Lincoln was often quoted as wanting to “discourage litigation,” when, coupled with Lincoln’s political ambitions, made him less than ideal for partnership in a law firm. Although the firm was successful, it’s easy to see why Herndon was frustrated, and that frustration might have led to this myth.

There are also myths regarding his physical and mental health. Many of us have been taught that Lincoln suffered from clinical depression and Marfan’s Syndrome. We know that there were times when Lincoln was unhappy, such as when his first love Ann died, and when his son Willie died. He was able to accomplish great things in his life without the help of modern treatments, so was this understandable sadness over life’s rough moments, or did he actually suffer from clinical depression? This is one myth we won’t be able to confirm or deny.

What about the Marfan’s Syndrome? Some say it wasn’t Marfan’s, but a cardiovascular disease or the cancer MEN2B, and that he would have died of natural causes before long had he not been assassinated. He had the signature tall stature of someone with Marfan’s, but was otherwise healthy. Lincoln ooked visibly older and more worn out as his presidency progressed. However, this is known to happen among presidents. Was anything else at the root of the issue? He lived for 9 hours after being shot, which could be a sign of pretty strong health.

Lincoln is remembered as being “Honest Abe.” Is this a case of fond remembrance, or the truth? Happily, this one is true! We know that he worked to pay for a book he borrow that was damaged, and was willing to go to great length  to make things right in his country store. For example, he once realized a customer overpaid by a few cents, so he walked to the customer’s house to return it. On another occasion, he realized he had misread the scales and given a woman too little tea. He measured out the tea due to her and brought it to her home. There are many of these stories which make it clear he really was a very honest man.

Lincoln was a complicated man, and there is certainly a mix of truth and legend in the way we remember him. However, it would appear that he was a good, honest man and president, and the country is better off for having had him in the White House.

Adams (a second cousin to John Adams, our second president), was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a delegate to the Continental Congress, governor of Massachusetts, and one of the leading philosophers who shaped the basic principles of the American republic.

Samuel Adams was born in Boston in 1722, in a family that was active in religion and politics. His father, Samuel Adams Sr., was a prominent merchant and a deacon in the Congregational church. He was a leader in the Boston Caucus, a group that initiated town meetings in early America. It was in this context that the resistance to British infringement on colonial rights had its start.

Sam Jr. followed his father’s interest in politics and civic duty. He graduated from Harvard College, writing a thesis in 1743 that argued it was “lawful to resist the Supreme Magistrate, if the Commonwealth cannot otherwise be preserved.” Even at that early age, Sam Adams favored overthrowing any tyranny that was crushing the rights of the individual.

After Harvard, Adams never was able to make much of a success in business. He considered becoming a lawyer, and his parents wanted him to become a minister. Instead, he worked in a counting house, a position for which he was ill suited. His father loaned him a considerable amount of money to go into business for himself, and that also did not work out. It was then that Adams Sr. took his son into the family malt business. The Adams had been maltsters for several generations, producing the malt needed for brewing beer.

Samuel Adams never made much of a success in the family business. In fact, he is more famous for beer today than when he was alive. His strength was elsewhere — in the thoughts, the philosophy, the writing and the leadership he displayed in helping found a new nation.

The Boston Beer Company started Samuel Adams Boston Lager in 1985, appropriating the likeness of a local boy. There also is the Sam Adams Alliance and the Sam Adams Foundation, non-profit groups that honor Adams for his ability to organize citizens at the local level.

One must realize that Samuel Adams and the other men who sparked the American Revolution were true revolutionaries. They may be viewed by some today as establishment figures who were protecting their own colonial wealth. That is not entirely true. While some of the leaders were wealthy and influential, they put their lives on the line in challenging the British crown. Many of them were hunted men, with a price on their head, even before the war began. If the outcome had been different, many of the men we honor as Founding Fathers would have been hanged — as was Patrick Henry for his beliefs. It wasn’t easy, and it never was a sure thing.

One also must realize just how revolutionary the American Revolution was. The principles voiced by Samuel Adams and the other Founding Fathers had never been espoused before. Until that time, it was taken for granted that individual rights were something that was granted by the government. The Founding Fathers said it was the other way around, that people “were endowed by their Creator” with rights.

Rights granted by a government can be taken away by a government. But rights granted by God cannot be taken from a free people. The Founding Fathers said that government was created by men to protect individual rights — that government was to serve man, not the other way around.

The Founding Fathers knew that government was intended to protect the liberty of the people, not to provide guaranteed benefits and entitlements. They knew that a free people should be allowed the opportunity to make their own way, without government interference and without the government making people slaves to a welfare system they cannot escape.

Samuel Adams and the other founders also knew that government ought to be replaced when it abused the rights of the people it is supposed to be representing.

An article in the New York Times on Monday wrote of the U.S. Constitution dismissively, saying plainly, “Our Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.”

Is it important for a constitution to be stable and enshrine general principles or easily-changable and specific according to the challenges of different times?

Few would argue against the notion that a constitution is a framework for how a government functions. It outlines government responsibilities, powers, and procedures. Most of the time, constitutions are written as a single document, which can be expanded through amendments. Sometimes, however, as in the case of the British constitution, constitutions are built upon long-standing legislation and legal precedent.

Most constitutions also outline rights belonging to citizens or subjects. This is the key point that differentiates the U.S. Constitution from most others. Instead of outlining the rights permitted to individuals (positive liberty), the U.S. Constitution outlines the few enumerated powers assigned to the Congress and the president, and then says explicitly what the government cannot do. For example, it says politicians cannot pass legislation that abridges an individual’s right to express themselves freely (in speech, religion, or media), that violates a person’s property without a warrant, or that forces someone to self-incriminate. These enumerated rights fall under the idea of negative liberty, which protects an individual’s rights from government interference.

The problem with constitutions that take a positive liberty approach is they must include every conceivable right belonging to individuals under that government in order for those rights to be protected. If a constitution says, for example, a person has the right to free expression on paper, the government could potentially deny that person the ability to express himself on the Internet electronically.

Basing a constitution on general principles is superior to listing specific rights because a good constitution acts as a lens through which people of different opinions and status can live together peaceably regardless of changing norms and circumstances.

There is a reason the U.S. Constitution has lasted as long as it has (almost 224 years longer than the 19 years other constitutions last on average). Not only is it difficult to change, but its general principles are open to interpretation. This has been called one of its faults, but it’s also the only way it has served a nation as it has grown from 2.5 million living mostly in rural areas in 1776 to well over 310 million living mostly in cities today.

If you want a constitution that is lengthy and new, look no further than the constitution of India. It takes 400 pages to explain all the ways in which India’s government will advance a just, equal, free, friendly, secular, socialist government.

But if you want a government bound to protect individual liberties–and does a good job overall–look to that old U.S. Constitution.

Do justices ever turn out to surprise the president who nominated them? This is sometimes true, but is normally a case of misjudgment by the nominating president rather than an ideological surprise by the justice. For example, George HW Bush nominated David Souter, who turned out to be much more liberal than expected. However, as Souter was a northeastern Republican with the record to match, this should have been anticipated. The other way in which a Supreme Court Justice is seen to change from the expected ideology is when the makeup of the court shifts around him or her. A judge who is appointed as the paragon of his or her political party might, as others of a similar ideology are nominated, start to seem more moderate. This is a change in perception rather than a surprise shift in beliefs.

Is the ability to build a consensus really the sign of a great justice? This has happened, but it’s rare. Take, for example, Earl Warren. He is remembered as being the unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, having gotten different factions in the court to agree to overturn separate but equal. Frequently, though, the differences are simply too great to be overcome by a well-spoken and persuasive justice.

Do Supreme Court Justices simply follow the rules to come to a decision? Perhaps they would, but there is no real rulebook and, therefore, no rules. Constitutional concepts are interpreted differently by different justices. Their job is much more subjective than most of us would like to think. If the issue were that obvious, it would have been decided by a lower court, leaving the Supreme Court to deal with stickier situations. With many of these cases, justices are guided by their own morality and values, and these cannot be dictated by any rulebook.

Can one justice change the court? Yes! A Supreme Court Justice can expect to serve for 20 years or more. Any new justice could become head justice someday, or could spend decades being the deciding vote on toughly contested cases. One Supreme Court justice can change the court and, through that, the lives of everyday Americans. It’s a very important job!

Having one central Supreme Court is one of the ways in which the separate states in our union are connected. It keeps laws consistent and, above all, constitutional. It’s a very important job, so it’s imperative that each president nominates wisely!

3V6PK929D2PG