top of page

THE AUTHOR

I don't remember when I became interested in politics. I've always been interested in history—historical fiction was my favorite genre growing up—and history nerds tend to be invested in politics as the two are closely tied. When I was a kid, I loved my American Girl dolls; I first learned about the divisions during the Revolutionary War and FDR’s New Deal through the dolls Felicity and Kit. 

 

In 2012, when I was in fifth grade, my class had a mock presidential election. I supported Romney because that's who my parents voted for. The most dramatic change I can think of, that a-ha moment when I began to care about politics, was around the time Donald Trump was elected president. One of my friends said she didn't care that Trump won. Her parents were mad when Obama won in '08, she said, and her life didn’t change at all between the Bush and Obama administrations. The naivety of this comment angered me.

​

When I got to college, after I had the epiphany that I was not fit to be a STEM girl, I decided to major in political science, later changing to public policy. I have never been one of those people crazy into politics; I've never volunteered for a campaign and I’ve only phone-banked for a candidate once. I don't think I'm fit to become a politician because I hate when people judge me. But I remain fascinated by how politics works. I love scrolling on social media and reading people’s political views, and I am fascinated by how social movements affect what becomes law. And, as you can guess from this project, I think the Supreme Court and people's perception of it is riveting. 

NYC_0082_07-28-2010_hq.JPG

My brothers and I in New York City. You'll notice my American Girl doll, Felicity, who I brought everywhere.

IMG_4952_hq.JPG

Reading a book about Anne Frank on my grandparent's couch in Florida.

THE PROJECT

This project has its origins in my first year writing class at the University of Michigan, which focused on the judiciary and legal papers. I loved it; I felt so sophisticated reading things like Roe v. Wade and Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America. One paper I wrote for the class explored how politics harms the court system, using film from pop culture to prove my point. While it was not my favorite paper at the time—I even emailed my professor to beg for an extension—it eventually won the Feinberg Family Writing Prize in the research argument category, earning me $250 in the process. 

​

Over a year later, I remain interested in the court system and its intersection with politics, especially considering how society's perception of the judiciary harms its legitimacy. I spend way too much time on Twitter (just reading because I’m too scared to tweet), and over the years I became fascinated by the way people on Twitter describe the judiciary. When I had to choose a piece to expand upon during Writing 220, I immediately thought of the paper from my first year writing class. 

​

I experimented with the paper in numerous ways, creating social media posts and infographics that explained the message in a different manner. These were fun, but I wanted to write about the Supreme Court in a way that showed my own voice. I settled on writing op-eds. The op-ed section is my favorite part of The New York Times. I like hearing people voice their opinions, and I like the ways their personality shines through, a feature absent from academic papers and regular newspaper articles. I had written an op-ed before for a public policy class, but it was very straightforward and factual. I wanted a space where I could sit at a computer and let my opinions flow, and this project provided just the avenue. I ended up writing three op-eds, one each on Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Ted Cruz during the Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas. Each shows in its own subtle way how public perception affects the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. 

bottom of page