That's what gets my goat.
You may say that my one semester of Intro to Law as an undergraduate makes me unqualified to speak on such a matter, but I'd argue the fact I've covered the basics of law and government without all the extraneous nuance makes me exceptionally qualified to opine on a very broad, unspecific point: We have got to stop letting lawyers run things - especially the Supreme Court!
Were you aware that you don't have to be a judge to be on the Supreme Court? Would it surprise you to learn you don't even have to be a lawyer?
It's true. In fact the only real qualification is that one be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's it.
I've said for years that the first name on my Supreme Court list were I to ever find myself President and faced with a Court vacancy would be Jim Cameron - the guy who taught my American Political Institutions class in college. He's a constitutional law scholar, but more importantly a practical and caring individual, full of wisdom. Now, he's gotten up in a age a bit and retired from teaching, so perhaps I'll need to formulate a new list (you know, in the event we adopt my new election plan of picking a name out of a hat for every position and taking turns), but the point stands.
You don't need to be a great legal scholar to be a great Supreme Court justice, you just need a little intelligence, a lot of common sense, and a heart full of compassion.
Why do we insist on having "the greatest legal minds of her generation" sitting in those robes? Well, they tell us it's because the minute arguments and facts of law argued over in these immense cases are so extraordinarily difficult to parse and understand, let alone decide, that people need to be extremely well trained and versed in the process. Of course, who is it that tells us that? Lawyers. Who gets to decide who those people might be? Presidents (often lawyers) and Senators (I believe still over 50% lawyers). It's sort of the same gilded wall people in my profession have built - that only theologians can really do theology. Well, you don't have to be a lawyer to be a good Supreme Court justice.
You just don't.
Why not? Well, because there are layers and layers of lawyers and judges working on the lower levels of justice who do know all that stuff and make really good decisions. The Supreme Court was never meant to be the ultimate arbiter of minute legal matters - the Supreme Court was designed to save the nation from the lawyers, to step in when the law clearly violates fairness or justice or the common good. We've got plenty of lawyers making and defending and parsing our laws. We don't need another layer of them in fancy robes with no expiration date.
What we do need are wise people who can find the few cases where the law failed us and make heartfelt changes for the common good. Sure, we're never actually going to agree on what the common good might be and these grandstanding confirmation hearings will continue ad nauseum, but at least, perhaps, they might be talking about things that really matter in a candidate for the highest office in the land: wisdom.
You might be surprised to know I'm generally progressive, especially on social issues. When it comes to individual freedom over corporate or government control, I tend to be willing to risk a little chaos to side with the little guy. It puts me more in the RBG camp than the other one.
Still, I think perhaps the most wise decision any Supreme Court justice has made in my lifetime was Chief Justice John Roberts letting the ACA stand. We all know his legal arguments were bunk - virtually indecipherable when it comes to logic, but clear as day when it comes to social awareness. He said "this law is a mess, but I don't want to be the guy whose Court invalidated the notion that people should have healthcare.
Congress and the voters will have to fix this mess, but it's a mess that we deserve (for any number of different reasons).
The guy did precisely what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. He knew that because, at least according to everything I've read, he was one of the greatest Supreme Court fanboys of all time. He knows what the institution is supposed to be and he knows his role as the head of it. We might not have the same inclinations when it comes to decisions, but I trust the guy understands his role. I wouldn't say that for some of the other justices (both conservative and otherwise) and I certainly wouldn't say that for most of the US Senate.
I don't want this to be a dig at lawyers. Not to be cliche, but literally, some of my best friends are lawyers. I get the importance of what they do and would never want to minimize it. I do think the Supreme Court is something different, though - it's a part of that "government by the people" thing. It's not about who can tie themselves up in the best legal knots - the kind of logic and wordplay I truly admire from lawyers - it's about how the decisions of that legal system effect the country as a whole. It's different.
I don't want judges to be elected or any old person in those positions. I'd just like for us to change our perspective on the Supreme Court a little bit. Just because it's the highest court in the land, doesn't mean it has to look like all the others - in fact, it really shouldn't.
In the end, we're not a nation of laws, as the lawyers so often like to claim, we're a nation of people. People and laws are different. I don't mind having lawyers on the Supreme Court - a great legal mind is a good thing almost anywhere - I just hope they (and the people who choose them) will be mindful that a great legal mind is not the most important thing for that particular position.
No comments:
Post a Comment