Whether the issue is redistricting, affirmative action, voting rights, abortion, presidential immunity, or any of the other country-defining questions that the Roberts Court has decided over the last two decades, there can be no doubt that the justices dramatically changed our nation’s politics and national identity. But the Roberts Court is not unique in its importance. In 1857, the Court did not allow Congress to end slavery in the territories—a decision that led to the Civil War. In the early 1930s, the Court blocked several of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s important New Deal programs during the middle of the Great Depression, leading to his threats to pack the Court. The Warren Court transformed America with its criminal procedure and civil rights decisions, leading directly to the Republican Party/Evangelical fusion that plays such a large role in our elections. No court of law in world history has exercised this much power and influence.

The Court often acts in ideologically charged ways in important constitutional law cases in one political or partisan direction. Those who disagree with that trend often push for reforms to cut back the Court’s power or to persuade the justices to decide cases differently. In the 1960s and 1970s these efforts came from conservatives opposed to Brown, Miranda, and Roe. Today, those efforts are coming from liberals because of the Roberts Court’s dismantling of the progressive decisions that came before it and its zealous over-protection of religion, guns, GOP redistricting, and presidential power. But no matter who is angry with the Court, a shared premise underlying reform efforts has been that the justices are judges of law restrained by the Constitution, other positive law, and prior cases. But that premise is incorrect, and the myths it creates are dangerous.

The justices have life tenure and cannot be removed from office absent impeachment. They are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate through a nakedly partisan political process which We the People have no control over. And when they issue constitutional decisions, they possess effectively unreviewable power given the super-majoritarian requirements for constitutional amendments.

Because we call this institution the “Supreme Court,” and the nine people who make it up wear black robes and sit in a majestic courtroom, the American people view them as judges of law. And the justices see themselves that way, so they express their opinions in technical, legal language that is often difficult for non-lawyers to understand. We accept the anti-representative nature of the institution because the justices are not supposed to make “political” decisions but “legal” ones.