Two Significant Inconsistencies In Dr. Scott's Lecture On The Judiciary

In her response lecture, Professor West identifies two very significant inconsistencies in Dr. Scott's lecture on the Judiciary. Professor West says, "You can tell a lot about a teacher by what they lecture. You can also tell a lot about a teacher by what they don't lecture or what they leave out"(West, 2:27). This idea is very apparent when it comes to Dr. Scott's lecture. Not only does Dr. Scott leave out some very vital information in his lectures, but he provides misinformation and makes contradictory points in his lecture. One very important piece of information that Dr. Scott gets wrong that Professor West corrects him on is John Marshall being the second Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This statement is false. John Marshall was actually

The true second Chief Justice was actually John Rutledge, however, he only served for 5 months due to not being able to get approved by the Senate. The third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was Oliver Elsworth, who served roughly 4 years. Elsworth was put out of office due to the Judiciary Act of 1801. Only then do arrive at John Marshall, who served as Chief Justice for thirty-four years. Dr. Scott skips over close to 6 years of vital information by stating that John Marshall was the second Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Another mistake made by Dr. Scott is his statement on interpretation. Dr. Scott says, "If Congress amends the Constitution, the Supreme Court has to interpret what the new amendment says." Professor West stresses that this is not true. In many cases, there is nothing to "interpret," the Constitution is very clear in its meaning. A big debate was on the saying "trade among the states" or "trade in the states." The terms "among" and "in" mean two entirely different