The Supreme Court Building, built between 1932--1935, was designed by architect Cass Gilbert, who also built the Woolworth Building in New York. Architect Cass Gilbert is often praised for pioneering the skyscraper, yet he looked back to ancient Rome when he designed the US Supreme Court Building. The Neoclassical style was chosen to reflect democratic ideals. Ironically, Gilbert's friendship with Mussolini helped him obtain the marble used for the interior columns.
Although the first session of the Supreme Court was February 1, 1790, it took 145 years for the Supreme Court to get a permanent residence of its own. No provision had been made for a Supreme Court building, so Congress lent the Court space in a chamber in the Capitol building. Finally, in 1929, former President William Howard Taft, who was Chief Justice from 1921 to 1930, persuaded Congress to authorize a permanent home for the Court.
On the main entrance of the Supreme Court Building, sixteen marble Corinthian columns support the pediment. Along the molding just above the columns are the engraved words, "Equal Justice Under Law."
In the western pediment sculptures by Robert Aitken represent Liberty seated in a throne and guarded by figures that represent Order and Authority. Although these sculptures are metaphorical figures, they were carved in the likeness of real people.
On the main entrance of the Supreme Court Building, sixteen marble Corinthian columns support the pediment. Along the molding just above the columns are the engraved words, "Equal Justice Under Law."
In the western pediment sculptures by Robert Aitken represent Liberty seated in a throne and guarded by figures that represent Order and Authority. Although these sculptures are metaphorical figures, they were carved in the likeness of real people.
Right side:
· Chief Justice Hughes
· the sculptor Robert Aitken
· Chief Justice Marshall as a young man sit
Left side:
· Chief Justice Taft as a youth
· Secretary of State Elihu Root
· the architect Cass Gilbert
On either side of the main steps of the Supreme Court Building are seated marble figures. These large statues are the work of sculptor James Earle Fraser. On the left is a female figure, the Contemplation of Justice.
On the right side of the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building is a male figure by sculptor James Earle Fraser. This sculpture represents the Guardian or the Authority of Law.
On the back, east side, of the Supreme Court Building are the word "Justice the Guardian of Liberty" carved above the columns.
The sculptures in the eastern pediment of the US Supreme Court Building were carved by Herman A. McNeil. At the center are three great lawmakers:
On the right side of the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building is a male figure by sculptor James Earle Fraser. This sculpture represents the Guardian or the Authority of Law.
On the back, east side, of the Supreme Court Building are the word "Justice the Guardian of Liberty" carved above the columns.
The sculptures in the eastern pediment of the US Supreme Court Building were carved by Herman A. McNeil. At the center are three great lawmakers:
· Moses
· Confucius
· Solon
These figures are flanked by figures that symbolize ideas:
· Means of Enforcing the Law
· Tempering Justice with Mercy
· Carrying on Civilization
· Settlement of Disputes Between States
Herman A. MacNeil's pediment carvings stirred controversy because the central figures were drawn from religious traditions. However, in the 1930s, the Supreme Court Building Commission did not question the wisdom of placing Moses, Confucius, and Solon on a secular government building. Rather, they trusted in the architect, who deferred to the artistry of the sculptor, Herman A. MacNeil.
MacNeil did not intend his sculptures to have religious connotations. Explaining his work, MacNeil wrote, "Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The 'Eastern Pediment' of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East."
Cost to build: $9.74 million
Sculptors:
· John Donnelly, Jr: Cast bronze entrance doors
· Robert Aitken: Carvings in western pediment
· Herman A. MacNeil: Carvings in eastern pediment
· James Earle Fraser: Scuptures at entrance
MEANING OVER TIME
The Supreme Court Building has changed meaning over time, specifically with the knowledge that as a coequal branch of the United States government it was not provided with a building of its own until 1935, 146 years after it was established. The Supreme Court moved locations many times, and at least a half dozen times within the Capitol, where it stayed until 1935. The building itself was expected to reflect dignity and importance that was equal in grandeur to the Capitol and White House. Each branch of government was established as separate but equal entities of government. The Supreme Court Building metaphorically represents that very idea of separate and equal branches.
COMMENTS
Upon visiting the Supreme Court, I was struck by the classical Corinthian architectural style and the detail and beauty of the friezes. The building is infused with elegant marble and one knows upon entering it that they are in a place of importance. The courtroom itself is elegant and formal, yet because of its relatively small size has an intimacy that does not overwhelm. The Court is open to the public, which can hear oral arguments presented before it. The beauty and splendor of the Supreme Court Building is important in establishing it as a permanent, separate, and equally significant piece of our democratically established government.
The Supreme Court Building has changed meaning over time, specifically with the knowledge that as a coequal branch of the United States government it was not provided with a building of its own until 1935, 146 years after it was established. The Supreme Court moved locations many times, and at least a half dozen times within the Capitol, where it stayed until 1935. The building itself was expected to reflect dignity and importance that was equal in grandeur to the Capitol and White House. Each branch of government was established as separate but equal entities of government. The Supreme Court Building metaphorically represents that very idea of separate and equal branches.
COMMENTS
Upon visiting the Supreme Court, I was struck by the classical Corinthian architectural style and the detail and beauty of the friezes. The building is infused with elegant marble and one knows upon entering it that they are in a place of importance. The courtroom itself is elegant and formal, yet because of its relatively small size has an intimacy that does not overwhelm. The Court is open to the public, which can hear oral arguments presented before it. The beauty and splendor of the Supreme Court Building is important in establishing it as a permanent, separate, and equally significant piece of our democratically established government.
It looks like we have Roman models all round us - We'll have to figure out what that means.
ReplyDeleteI must admit I was somewhat underwhelmed by the Supreme Court building. The exterior is certainly grand, and the climb up the steps, between the fountains and statues, was impressive. The interior of the building was less so. As our docent noted, many visitors expect the courtroom to be larger than it is. That the building is smaller than the Capital is not surprising; that it is SO MUCH SMALLER is, along with being significantly smaller than the Library of Congress buildings, and many of the institutions and administrative buildings along the mall.
ReplyDeleteAll of which gets me thinking about function versus symbolism, i.e., the sheer number of people working in the Capital compared to the Supreme Court; a much larger building is needed to house the Congress. But the fact that the Court didn't even have its own building until 1935 says a lot.
I couldn't agree more Lindsay. Although the Supreme Court should have equal power to the other two branches, the building seemed less impressive than the Capitol and White House.
ReplyDeleteThe tour guide's explanation of how a new Chief Justice is appointed (and how the pecking order is established) was a little muddy.
The part we were able to see was much less powerful that the actual size of it, but I think the fact that we were not able to see the majority of it spoke volumes. To me, the importance of what happens there was evident in the fact were closed to most of it. In fact, I got a sense of "Keep Out" federal business going on here that most is not open for the public to see.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Autumn; the Supreme Court certainly takes the title of Supreme to the highest levels. They want to show the public only a glimpse, then get back to doing their elite business. For instance, we were told to keep our voices down more than once, when we weren't that loud, lest we disturb the judges. The voice of the people must stay out of the court? Posh!
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, we need to somehow get better docents at the Court. That was possibly the worst we heard. Highly aggravating as well was the poor, outdated, and really self serving video.
A very cool building, but rather empty and distant to me
It is interesting to learn that the Supreme Court did not get its own building until the 1930s, but yet again, that says a lot about its own history. Before the 20th century, one can argue that the courts were heavily influenced either by the presidency, congressmen or wealthy businessmen. But as the 20th century emerged and the people gained a greater voice, it seems as if the creation of a Supreme Court building was necessary in order to show the public that the court was indeed a separate and impartial branch of government. The building itself is a reflection of Roman democratic ideals clearly sending a message that government had an understanding and respect for these principles. Interesting enough, above the entrance it states “Equal Justice Under Law.” In essence, it allows people to go to a physical space and voice their opinions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Autumn and Michael's comments about the impressive exterior and interior of the Supreme Court. It is an impressive building architecturally but there is certainly an air of mystery in what happens behind closed doors. I also agree with Cindy that the judicial branch needed its own building to show its importance and function. In a way I think that the public's limited view of what is seen in this building is necessary in light of the thought and research that goes into each case that is heard and each decision that is written. The docent and visitor exhbitions were underwhelming to say the least and would not be engaging enough for a high school student or an average American to make a visit to this site.
ReplyDelete