Wanted: Pragmatic, Empathic, Real-World Experience
I'm starting to feel bad for our next Supreme Court justice. This yet-to-be-named person already faces impossible expectations from members of Congress -- namely the desire to "represent" almost every facet of society. As the Associated Press reported:
Obama said last week he wanted someone with empathy for average Americans. Conservatives fear that means the president would consider "judicial activists" for the seat...
"I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery, somebody who has had some real-life experience, not just as a judge," said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy..."I would like to see, certainly, more women on the court. Having only one woman on the Supreme Court does not reflect the makeup of the United States. I think we should have more women. We should have more minorities."...
"I would like to see somebody with broader experience," [Sen. Arlen] Specter said. "We have a very diverse country. We need more people to express a woman's point of view or a minority point of view, Hispanic or African American ... somebody who's done something more than wear a black robe for most of their lives."...
[Sen. Richard Shelby] said empathy should be only part of the criteria for a nominee and that a justice should follow the law, not make it.
"But if he will appoint a pragmatist, someone who is not an ideologue ... I think that would be good for the country," Shelby said.
I don't see how one person can represent the "point of view" of women, Hispanics, minorities, real-world people, centrists, pragmatists, non-ideologues, the middle class, the working class, the poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free...and of course, the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?
Here's my question: If all these senators are so concerned about the Supreme Court properly "representing" all these facets of society, why don't they simply expand the court? You'll never achieve much demographic diversity with a nine-member bench. And since anyone who pays attention realizes the justices do most of their work through law clerks -- four per justice -- why not simply alter the composition of the court to reflect this reality? In other words, nix the pampered law students and add 36 justices to the court. Then there will be plenty of "representation" for everyone! (And while we're at it, let's add a few hundred more members to the House of Representatives.)
Comments (7)
Mark
Call me naive, but I thought representatives were supposed to represent the people and justices were supposed to blindly apply the law.
Published: May 3, 2009 7:26 PM
Conza88
"And while we're at it, let's add a few hundred more members to the House of Representatives."
Yeah, it should be roughly 10,000 members of Congress if Jeffersons 30,000 to one ratio where to be the standard.
That's a lot of Ron Paul supporters you'd have to try and contain if you are the Republicrats and Democons.
Published: May 3, 2009 7:30 PM
BenS
Mark: that's the idea, although Schmitt would contend that isn't possible. And actually I'd probably agree with him, but dismiss it as an irrelevance.
Conza88: Heh, perhaps, but in the US that'd be less relevant if government were more localised.
Published: May 3, 2009 7:39 PM
BioTube
The first amendment sent to the states for approval was designed to guarantee a 50000:1 ratio in the House, but a bizarre change in the conference committee made that the max, not the lower bound. Had the change not been made, we'd have about 6000 reps, instead of 435(fixed since ~1913).
Published: May 3, 2009 9:37 PM
Taylor
Do as we say, not as we do.
Because, and I don't mean this in a derogatory manner, most senators and congressmen are white, Anglo-Saxon/European Protestant/Catholic middle-aged men... who have done nothing their entire lives but write business-destroying laws, intervene in the free exchange and free expression of other people's lives and get caught with their pants down and their hands dirty.
How about mixing it up in Congress, too... get a few people who actually have sustained themselves by helping to sustain other people through productive, voluntary enterprise.
And whose hands are clean (this rules out bankster criminal liars).
Any takers, ya flippin' hypocrites? No?
I didn't think so.
Disgusting filth.
Published: May 4, 2009 1:01 PM
AC
So do judges not have any real life experiences? Didn't they go to grade school, high school, college, work different jobs during schooling. Don't judges know how to drive cars, shop in a grocery store, have hobbies, have children, grandchildren, spouses, houses to maintain, contract illnesses, mow their yards, have struggles in their lives, etc.?
What is this "real life experience" nonsense? I suspect it is thinly veiled ideological garbage to get someone on the supreme court who has no legal credentials.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think our current court really stands up for the constitution, exhibit A the Kelo decision. But I believe our current president desires to simply put people on the court who will further limit liberty.
Published: May 4, 2009 1:17 PM
damocles
speaking as an attorney with Supreme Ct experience, today most justices have little or no non-legal real life experience. In the nineteenth century, the situation was quite different.
Published: May 4, 2009 7:46 PM