I know what you’re thinking … Another political article? Really? Aren’t there enough of these already? The simple answer is no. There are not enough of these already, but I understand your chagrin. My best friend grew tired of my political rants months ago. She puts me on a timer now every time I get on the subject. I realize she’s heard it all from me a million times, so I usually try to heed her warnings and drop it when my time is up. But know this––as the election draws closer, I’ll probably only be writing more and more political articles. Better put me on a timer because some of these rants are going to be rather long-winded.

I registered to vote today. It’s been exactly a month since my eighteenth birthday, and not a day has gone by that it hasn’t bugged me that I hadn’t yet registered. Albeit, there was really no reason to before today as you can’t vote in my town’s primary unless you’re registered three months in advance. My late April birthday precluded my voice from being heard in that poll. Never again.

I’m just as discouraged and disheartened with my choices on the presidential ballot this year as the next citizen, but I am still extremely excited to be casting my first official vote in a presidential election. I finally get to have a say in the state of our nation and our world. For most people, getting to vote for our next commander in chief is exciting enough, but the main reason I am positively bursting with excitement to cast my vote has very little to do with the executive branch. I am thrilled to have a say in who gets to appoint our next Supreme Court Justice.

It’s time to address the gargantuan importance of the Highest Court in the Land.

You may have noticed lately that many decisions being handed down from SCOTUS are 4-4. Perhaps the most notable example of this frequently occurring gridlock was when the justices failed to reach a majority opinion on the basis of whether Obamacare could mandate religious business to offer birth control coverage to employees. This was not the first time the justices have found themselves futile, and it is far from the last. Since the February death of conservative legal lion Antonin Scalia, the ideological divide between the country’s most brilliant and revered legal minds has widened considerably. Our nine justices have found themselves fundamentally opposed to one another on nearly every front, and the two opposing camps are regrettably even in size. The liberal camp, led by the feisty and formidable Ruth Bader Ginsburg, counts Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer among its ranks, while the conservative camp, whose de facto and somewhat demure leader is Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in the wake of Scalia’s death, is home to Kennedy, Thomas and Alito. With that being said, Kennedy and--far less frequently--Breyer have the capacity to swing with both their left and right hands leading, but both vote with one side often enough to be considered a part of their respective teams.

Scalia’s death did not just leave the Court evenly divided, though. It also left the conservative faction without a witty and wisecracking wordsmith to rally behind. The Chief Justice has tried wearing the mantle for the past few months, but the fact of the matter is it just does not fit him. It nearly swallows him whole. John G. Roberts Jr. is not a brilliant but sometimes belligerent conservative powerhouse like Scalia was. He is much more calm, understated and understanding. Both roles are absolutely necessary for the continued relevance and respectability of the conservative branch of the Supreme Court, but John G. Roberts Jr. cannot be double cast. He is not Prince Hamlet. He is an attendant lord. Politic, cautious and meticulous. (Note to whoever is editing this: I realize the previous sentence should say “political” not “politic” for the sake of parallelism, but I’m referencing “The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock,” so if for the sake of the allusion, we could leave it as “politic,” that’d be great! Thanks!) He can swell a progress, start a scene or two, but he is not the one who will avenge King Hamlet and end Claudius's reign.

What exactly do I mean by avenge King Hamlet and end Claudius’s reign? Well, the Supreme Court recently enjoyed its second longest tenure with an unchanging lineup under the leadership of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. For eleven years, the Court existed in a state of relative static stoicism, all the while enjoying a carte blanche in terms of scope of authority. With Sandra Day O’Connor as the Court’s resident and requisite swing vote at the time, SCOTUS decided many landmark and watershed cases. Now it seems that the legacy of the Rehnquist Court hangs in the balance. An entirely even balance that has to be broken.

The Court exists to be unbalanced. It cannot fulfill its constitutional duty while deadlocked. The justices must make decisions free of partisan biases or outside influences. The rectification of opposing ideals is the very essence and legacy of past Supreme Court benches. The justices currently sitting on our Highest Bench, save for Justice Ginsburg, Justice Kennedy and possibly Chief Justice Roberts do not seem to understand this concept.

Thanks to the current Court’s lineup being so inert, key cases like the Obamacare birth control mandate and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the most important abortive rights case since Roe v. Wade, are being sent back down to lower courts, meaning they lack the ability to affect the nation as a whole. Hellerstedt could have shut down abortion facilities all over the country and saved countless women’s lives by ensuring that abortion clinics that remained open had admitting rights to the closest hospital. Conversely, it could have once again affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion anywhere in this country. Now, it can do neither. It can only affect the state of Texas. The Supreme Court is failing to do its most fundamental duty because it cannot make sweeping, federal decisions so long as its justices votes 4-4. For someone who followed the Hellerstedt case for nearly a year, hoping and praying it could bring us closer to seeing the end of abortion, this is extremely disheartening to witness. Almost more disheartening than the current pitiful excuse for a presidential race to which we’re being subjected. And the cases will only get more hot-button and important from here. SCOTUS is expected to hear cases about the constitutionality of the death penalty and more cases about employer-provided birth control in the coming terms. These are not the type of issues that can be left to an immobile, fruitless Court.

No matter which side of the ideological divide you fall on, you must agree that the Supreme Court desperately needs a ninth justice. They cannot function with just eight, and they should not have to do so. I just want to implore everyone to think about the far-reaching ramifications of your vote before you cast it. Think about the Supreme Court. Think about who you want selecting that ninth justice. Think about the fact that whoever is our next president will more than likely get at least three appointments to the Supreme Court (Justice Scalia’s seat is obviously still up for grabs, and Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy can both only serve for so much longer before their age becomes a major issue…), and that whoever they appoint gets a lifelong term, meaning they will more than sit on the Court for a good twenty to thirty years. Their impact on the future of our nation and our world will truly be indelible. Be cognizant of these facts. Then, after you think about them, pray about them. Pray for wisdom in making your decision. Pray for our current and future justices. Pray for our future president. Pray for our nation.