Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee; Miranda v. Arizona; Regents of the University of California v. Bakke; Bush v. Gore; Obergefell v. Hodges; Election spending; Miranda rights; Affirmative Action; election recounts; gay marriage.

Even if you despise political science, even if the thought of reading "The Federalist Papers" or "The Constitution" or "The Declaration of Independence," even if you chose to abstain from watching each of the three presidential debates, you probably know what the five listed principles mean—at the very least what they mean in your life.

Maybe election spending doesn't really affect you, or maybe you feel a deep injustice by large corporations exercising their first amendment in the form of campaign donations. You may have been arrested and were thankful that the police officer read you your Miranda Rights so you remembered not to speak until your lawyer arrived at the precinct. Possibly you are a college student of a minority race and believe that Affirmative Action made your education attainable, or maybe you feel that Affirmative Action lowers the standards expected of you. If you're a part of my generation, you probably don't remember the election of 2000 but you possibly heard your parents discuss their reaction to the Florida recount. You might be a Pastor's son or a Preacher's daughter, a member of the LGBTQ community, sibling of a gay brother, neighbor to a lesbian couple and you remember that day in June 2015 when the Supreme Court declared homosexual marriage constitutional in all 50 states.

These decisions were close calls, 5-4 rulings by the Supreme Court with slim margins in favor one side over the other. Such is the reality of America then and now: we are gridlocked as a society, extremely polarized by our differences, but on a case by case basis, it seems as if we actually could sway one way or another.

This 5-4 ratio is rather disillusioning, is it not? It's barely a majority but it becomes the reality. One change in heart and women would not have the rights granted to them by Roe v. Wade. A single vote reversed would mean states could continue to deny same-sex marriages equality under the law. It’s perplexing to think that such a close decision has so much weight when there is a decent portion not in agreement.

As a politically-minded member of my generation, these are the things I notice. I think about what these "close calls" imply; without the often moderate swing voter, the Supreme Court would relentlessly be stuck in a tie. There are few cases (re: Brown v. Board) when the Justices were all on the same page. When we look to the Supreme Court--and at our own reflections--we often don't find unity. The truth is we live in a polarized world of 5-4 decisions where one unpredictable voter makes or breaks the game.

Living in a 5-4 world means that a lot of people are going to be unhappy. In a 5-4 society, you could lose the case but still rest on the fact that almost enough people supported you. That might be enough justification to not change your decision and move on because so what if just one more person dissented than agreed? What’s one opinion in the wrong direction? Imagine if each of your decisions was challenged and brought to court; how often do you really think the jury would collectively support your choice?

From time to time we all make decisions that just won’t please everyone. Some are necessary evils and others are impromptu choices that, of course, have consequences. When I face a challenging decision, it seems as if my first reaction is to poll my friends and family for reassurance. At first, I try to evaluate the situation by myself. But when my conscious arrives at that all-too-familiar, 5-4 decision, I find myself disappointed either in the lack of confidence in myself and my actions.

Living in a 5-4 world means you and I will be unhappy with ourselves--at times. Joan Didion, a fantastic writer, encourages us all when she writes that “we are not idealized wild things. We are imperfect mortal beings, aware of that mortality even as we push it away, failed by our very complication, so weird that when we mourn our losses, we also mourn, for better or for worse, ourselves.” In this revelation, she makes clear that very understanding I came to after a week of choices that begged reevaluation: I will make mistakes. I will doubt if I have done the right thing, missed an opportunity, caused irreversible damage to a relationship. I will mourn for not being able to alter what has been done.

Living in a 5-4 world means we must learn to live with ourselves. We will not always be overly compelled, utterly convicted, and completely convinced that our thinking was right. We must work to face our consequences. You and I will adjust in order to accept our decisions, learn from them, and continue to discover who we are in order to better make our choices closer in tune with our identities. The Supreme Court may never fully agree on a cause, but that doesn’t mean you and I have to settle with so much discontent within ourselves.

Feeling 5-4 is not good enough. Yeah, you should have studied for that test and not spent so much time with your new boyfriend. Okay, maybe you should have spoken up in class when you had the chance because you really had something to contribute to the discussion. So tell me: what good does it do to let regrets consume your life? It sounds idealistic, but you don't have to let others question your choices or swim in so much doubt. I hope that today becomes the day you decide to think about the person you want to be, let that guide your choices, and live more in agreement with yourself--even in this challenging 5-4 world.