Supreme Court's Influence in Decline

Apparently, the influence of the Supreme Court is in decline.  The Supreme Court's caseload was about 3 times as great between 1900 and 1904 as was its caseload between 2007 and 2011: about 1032 cases were heard in the five year period between 1900 and 1904 while only about 402 cases were heard in the five year period between 2007 and 2011.  In other words, a century ago, there were about 3 times as many verdicts rendered by the Supreme Court.  To summarize, in 1900, there were three times as many judicial opportunities to check the growth and reach of government.  This is notable.

But it is even more striking given the observation that follows:  there are four times as many Americans today as there were in 1900.  A century ago, the population of the United States was only about 25% of what the population is today.  In other words, a century ago, there were three times as many judicial opportunities to check the growth and reach of government at a time when the population was a small fraction of what it is today.

Consequently, the Supreme Court's influence is greatly diminished: in 1900, the Supreme Court rendered about 1.4 verdicts per 100,000 American citizens in five years time; today, the Supreme Court renders about 0.13 verdicts per 100,000 American citizens in five years time. By this measure, the influence of the Court has been reduced 90% from what it was in 1900.  In other words, by this measure, the Supreme Court's influence was ten times as great in 1900 as it is today.  Of course, this measure of influence does not assess the influence of the Court relative to the other branches of the federal government.  Of course, this measure, which suggests that the influence of the Supreme Court has been diminished by 90%, does not consider the effect that partial, statist, and/or pro-federal verdicts might have on the Court's current ability to check the influence of the other branches of the federal government.  While it is not the subject of this post, pro-federal partiality would be an interesting topic to consider across a century--especially given its potential to incrementally diminish the Supreme Court's influence relative to both a) its former influence and b) its influence upon the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.  But this is a topic for another day.

Nonetheless, the diminution of the Supreme Court's influence helps to explain the present polarity of presidential politics.  We Americans worry, perhaps with reasonable cause, that we have elected not a President--but a King?