In the comments of one his posts, James Joyner well describes the basic issue as to why I argued in this post that
I would like to see someone with a more intellectual disposition and background on the Court. I think that SCOTUS should be populated with thinkers. It is a place where we should seek to place our best legal minds.
Some have construed this to means solely academics (one of James’ commenters said that it sounded like “Philosopher-Kings” and one of my commenters in the post below noted that a lot of intelligent people are in non-academic positions). I am not arguing for a bench full of academics. However, I am concerned that Meirs lacks the depth of knowledge of constitutional law needed to be the type of legal mind to be a solid member of the Court. I may yet be proved wrong, but her resume is not suggestive of this fact.
So, along these line, James notes
I want my battle plans drawn up by generals because they have spent their careers learning to make battle plans. Similarly, I want my Constitution safeguarded by constitutional scholars. That doesn’t preclude people with practical experience—John Roberts, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and others have had it. It just requires someone who has spent a number of years thinking through the issues, whether as an academic, as an appelate court judge, or as a Con Law litigator.
Exactly.
Sphere: Related Content
In case you are wondering…
Wow, there is a lot to read about the new SCOTUS nomination. I have been reading it. It is fascinating. Many are upset, angry or just pissed. Others are changing. Me? I am still where I was yesterday. I can see both sides, but tend to be optimistic a…
Trackback by Speed of Thought — Tuesday, October 4, 2024 @ 11:06 pm
The main problem with your reasoning is that you are thinking of the 2-3 “big idea” issues that come up each year. And, like most scholars, are ignoring the larger number of cases dealing with commerce, business and other obscure items that don’t grab headlines.
How about someone experienced in business as a justice? I would argue that more cases would be pertinent with that sort of background that someone with your ideal background.
Comment by Director Mitch — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 8:24 am
I don’t see how you can characterize my position in that fashion. Indeed, commerce is a key issue that comes before the court–so is hardly something I would dimiss.
Someone is business, even if they are brilliant, are not versed in constitutional law. Surely we want someone quite conversant in conlaw. Miers was a corporate attorney.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 9:57 am
Big Thinkers can also include politicians of certain stripes. Mario Cuomo was always a popular name floated around when Clinton was President. There are a few politician/Big Thinkers out there, but then inherent danger is that they will not be a reliable vote on the issues that matter most to the President. Hence his old attorney.
Comment by SoloD — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 11:13 am
[…] This strikes me as rather important. My basic views are here, and followed up here, here, here and here.
5 Comments
»
It’s ob […]
Pingback by Pros and Cons » A Point of Clarification — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 12:15 pm
Steven,
It is impossible to get “someone with a more intellectual disposition” as long as the Court is populated by lawyers.
*rimshot*
Comment by Richard Scott Nokes — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 4:10 pm
:)
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 4:14 pm