Ms. Jackson, about to be grilled by a bunch of Senators whose knowledge of the Constitution is sketchy, will make a fine Supreme Court Justice, smarter and more reasonable than at least six of the sitting justices. (You can figure out who they are.)
Here is another issue to consider. Why are all the Supreme Court justices attorneys? Where does it say that in the Constitution? The Court does not decide fine points of the law. Rather it decides philosophies and principles. Whether abortion should be legal and safe is not a point of law, it is a matter of philosophy. Same for election finance, or tribal sovereignty, or bail reform or anything else the Court decides.
Attorneys are taught to think in a certain way. There are two sides. There is a contest, a dispute, arguments. There are winners and losers. How about a rabbi or a philosophy prof or a labor union leader as a Supreme Court justice to bring a different mindset?
We hear a lot of talk about the need for diversity. I agree. The Court might have men, women, or trans members. It might have Blacks, Latinos, Asians, or American Indians. As long as it is all attorneys with a preponderance of them from Ivy League elite law schools, we will not see real diversity.
No comments:
Post a Comment