Supremacy Claws

A leit-motif in almost all of my classes this semester is that the Supreme Court is a bunch of uninformed, idiotic fools who do not understand precedent, have not accurately read historical documents, and come up with completely absurd and arbitrary arguments that, "can't you see," are just totally unfounded. All of my professors have tried more than once to get the point across that the Supreme Court does not always get it right, and in some instances, they get things completely wrong. We are not talking about political opinions that are contrary to those I or my professors might hold, such as the way the court will vote on Roe v. Wade, but missteps of logic, misstatements of facts, and blatant editing of prior decisions to suit whatever position the writing justice is attempting to justify. Some of my professor's attitude must come from that fact that they are experts in the area that they teach, and even though the Supreme Court only hears 70 cases a year, those cases cover a vast array of legal topics, and no one can really expect even the most brilliant legal scholars to be experts in all areas of the law. Furthermore, law professors surely all get a boost to their egos when they can point out to a bunch of supreme-court-pedestalizing law students that their reasoning and analysis is far more acute than those sitting on the most powerful court in the country. Thus, I find myself asking: am I witness to the small glories of obscure academics, or am I witness to a purposeful pedagogical technique on behalf of my professors to get us to question authority and think for ourselves? Probably some of both.