There’s no constitutional reason for it. They don’t even have to be lawyers.
42 thoughts on “The Next Supreme Court Justice”
People are far more likely to get things right if they’re making decisions within their own area of expertise than if they’re making decisions in someone else’s field of expertise.
Johnson v. M’Intosh. Dred Scott v. Sandford. Plessy v. Ferguson. Wickard v. Filburn. Korematsu v. United States….
Is your point that the SCOTUS has made decisions you disagree with?
So?
Is your logic that that is proof that appointing non-judges to the court will result in less decision you disagree with?
Just think of the chaos that would result with minds as illogical as yours on the bench of the SCOTUS.
Experts also have a tendency to get lost in the weeds.
I think without judicial training holding their ideological flights of fantasy in check you’d get rulings that the word bizarre doesn’t even begin to describe.
How would a court composed of (picking an off-the-top-of-my-head example) the current Presidential candidates suit you?
There are several scientific fields where ideology trumped science. Look at nutrition, where saturated fat was scientifically bad for 50 years. Look at climate change where some scientists claim that the deniers are anti-science. Scientists can wear the mantel of ideology from the beginning of their school days and not even realize it’s ideology.
Further back in history, look at phlogiston, look at how Boltzmann was demonized, look at the meteorite controversy.
Your argument makes no sense because you assume that training in a field automatically brings in a tempered, objective viewpoint with no tint of ideology. We know this is false.
Picking examples where the experts got it wrong does not prove that the non-expert are more likely to get it right.
Plumbers get things wrong sometimes, do you see that as a logical reason to get teachers to plumb your house?
Aerospace engineers get things wrong sometimes, do you see that as a logical reason to get dentists to build rockets?
Mechanics get things wrong sometimes, do you see that as a logical reason to get cartoonists to fix your car?
You’ve totally missed my point.
You said that experts make better decisions than amateurs. I point out with my numerous examples that corruptible humans often put ideology before science. You then say that experts sometimes make mistakes, without taking into consideration my point that these people were not making scientific decisions.
Egads, the modern scientist is as arrogant and as much of a blowhard as the scholastics were in Newton’s day.
Your point is only relevant if you’re going to argue that judges are more prone to corruption by their ideology than non-judicially trained people acting as judges would be.
I think that’s the opposite of reality.
As for scientists, not relevant to the topic, but I do think the accusation that scientists are notably corrupted by their ideology is itself a charge built to serve the ideology of those making it.
Your point is only relevant if you’re going to argue that judges are more prone to corruption by their ideology than non-judicially trained people acting as judges would be.
Judges are human, so are scientists. I explain how an expert can make mistakes when they put ideology above their expertise, Your reply is a twisted, mangled mis-interpretation of what I had to say.
It’s very simple: judges, like other people can make mistakes that are very, very human. This means that just because they are an expert, doesn’t mean they’re making the correct decision. This isn’t hard, really.
I would love a court picked by President Cruz. They would (hopefully) be originalists.
You both are forgetting that ideology is what is important in judges. Their interpretation of the law and constitution is informed by their ideology. We would all like to say justice is blind, but it isn’t.
Originalism is just as much an ideology as progressivism. I’d much rather have a non-lawyer or non-judge who believed in Originalism than a progressive who may be a lawyer or a judge but who doesn’t believe in the constitution or laws beyond how they can be twisted for party power or ideological fads.
A progressive with no legal experience wouldn’t be any different than one with legal experience. Hopefully, the same would be true with an originalist.
Hmm, not being American I admit I’ve probably not given enough weight to the importance of ideology in the interpretation of your Constitution.
Your interpretation is obviously that the letter of the law in the US (or at least the interpretation of the Constitution) is far more open to interpretation than it is in all other developed countries.
However, you state that “Originalism is just as much an ideology as progressivism”, and then go on to express your support for the appointment of judges willing to interpret the Constitution in ways that fit your own ideological fads. Personally I suspect that judicially trained judges would be more centrist in their interpretation of the constitution than untrained ideologues less encumbered by legal precedents, and that America would be better off with a centrist Supreme Court than one that makes rulings that swing wildly from left to right and back again depending on the results of presidential elections.
You probably don’t realize it, but you just demonstrated how profound a misunderstanding of the Constitution it is possible for a foreigner, or a foreigner wannabe to have.
Andrew, as a non-American, you may not have ever read a Supreme Court decision, but I’d be surprised to hear that Jon has read any either. Read a few. Pick a famous one, pick a few obscure ones at random. You’ll see that any role ideology plays is quite minor and you’ll see expertise is very necessary!
Bob-1, Wow, that’s a relief, after all the importance that Jon and Wodun have been attaching to ideology I was starting to think the US had some sort of banana republic legal system.
Rand Simberg
March 14, 2016 At 8:12 PM You probably don’t realize it, but you just demonstrated how profound a misunderstanding of the Constitution it is possible for a foreigner, or a foreigner wannabe to have.
What the hell is a “foreigner wannabe”?
Someone born American, but hates it, and wants to make it into someplace different.
Like Barack Obama.
Well, I can put your mind at ease on that one, UK born, persuaded my parents to move to NZ when I was 6 months old, lived here ever since.
When Melville Davisson Post wrote “It is the dead who govern” he must have been thinking of the founding fathers. When do you guys think you’ll be old enough to be governed by the living?
Well, I wasn’t accusing you of being a “foreigner wannabe.” Just a foreigner.
Which you seem to be. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but no reason for you to understand the Constitution or its basis.
Based on what’s on offer, we’re better off with the dead.
Woden, I totally agree. All I wanted to do was point out to Andrew that there is no such thing as an objective opinion. There is a reason judges have “opinions”.
The one change which would improve America the most: make admission to the Bar a disqualification from ever holding public office in the future. Lawyers should not write laws. It is a conflict of interest. Lawyers should instead be advising lawmakers.
There’s a claim circulating (which I put no stock in) that the “titles of nobility” clause in the Constitution already blocks lawyers from legitimately holding such public office. Something about the title “esquire” applied to lawyers.
What we really need is laws that non-lawyers can understand.
If the goal is to have a system that works better, change the system. Replacing the experts in the system with amateurs is what communist revolutionaries are infamous for.
Maybe the people deciding who the experts will be is the problem.
All too often a so called “expert” is no better than a has-been drip under pressure, or a political partisan.
The mistake you are making is assuming that all judges base their decisions on what laws say rather than their ideology. In order to get judges to act the way you think they do, you have to find judges with an ideology of originalism, which is not what our friends to the left look to when they become judges or when they hire them.
In fact, our friends to the left go so far as to say that their ideology trumps what laws or the constitution says.
I think the mistake that many people are making at this point is that they’re taking the arguments of a New Zealander (Andrew_W) as somehow relevant to the discussion of the qualifications of judges who sit on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
While I find outside opinions to be somewhat enlightening to the mindset of the speaker, in this case they’re nigh but distracting. I’m not a hardcore nationalist or anything, but why does it matter what people outside our country think should be the qualifications to hold offices in our country? We don’t sit around ragging on the Queen or Parliament…
Fair enough, but what’s your opinion? Jon and Wodun think ideology has a major influence on Supreme Court judges in terms of their rulings, Bob-1 thinks it doesn’t, and doubts Jon has ever read a Supreme Court decision.
I’m quite aware of how they are written. Please don’t insult me. I don’t pontificate on New Zealand laws for the very reason that I’m ignorant on them.
Andrew, as a non-American, you may not have ever read a Supreme Court decision, but I’d be surprised to hear that Jon has read any either. Read a few. Pick a famous one, pick a few obscure ones at random. You’ll see that any role ideology plays is quite minor and you’ll see expertise is very necessary!
Bob–you missed my point, too. How freaking hard is it to understand that a person’s “objective” viewpoint can be tainted by ideology? That is all that I’m saying. It reaaaaalllly is not that hard to understand this.
Andrew wants to say that there exists a realm of pure thought where people can make objective decisions. You know, what you always think you are doing but are oblivious to your own prejudices.
And yes, I’ve read some cases.
Wow, that’s a relief, after all the importance that Jon and Wodun have been attaching to ideology I was starting to think the US had some sort of banana republic legal system.
Everyone has an ideology except for you. How surprising.
Jon, everyone has an ideology, but that doesn’t mean that it affects everything we do, if a man is before a court charged with murdering his wife with a knife in the kitchen, and forensic evidence points to his guilt, how do you believe that ideology is going to have a significant affect on judge and jury?
In most countries government writes laws with the intent of having those be as unambiguous as possible, over here we see laws that can be interpreted differently by different people as bad law, so ideology of judge and jury becomes unimportant.
Are things really that different in the cases the US Supreme Court rules on?
The fact that some decisions don’t have ideology involved doesn’t meant that none do.
You’ll see that any role ideology plays is quite minor and you’ll see expertise is very necessary!
Gosh, Bob, are you saying that lawyers need to be an expert on the law? I really didn’t realize that. You know, if I am taking someone to court, I now know that I should get a lawyer! Do you think that a patent dispute would require a patent lawyer or should I get an expert on environmental law? I’m confused, please help me.
And, as usual, you’ve missed my point: there is no such thing as an objective, expert decision.
People are far more likely to get things right if they’re making decisions within their own area of expertise than if they’re making decisions in someone else’s field of expertise.
Johnson v. M’Intosh. Dred Scott v. Sandford. Plessy v. Ferguson. Wickard v. Filburn. Korematsu v. United States….
Is your point that the SCOTUS has made decisions you disagree with?
So?
Is your logic that that is proof that appointing non-judges to the court will result in less decision you disagree with?
Just think of the chaos that would result with minds as illogical as yours on the bench of the SCOTUS.
…Kramer v. Godzilla (scroll to 4:19)…
Experts also have a tendency to get lost in the weeds.
I think without judicial training holding their ideological flights of fantasy in check you’d get rulings that the word bizarre doesn’t even begin to describe.
How would a court composed of (picking an off-the-top-of-my-head example) the current Presidential candidates suit you?
There are several scientific fields where ideology trumped science. Look at nutrition, where saturated fat was scientifically bad for 50 years. Look at climate change where some scientists claim that the deniers are anti-science. Scientists can wear the mantel of ideology from the beginning of their school days and not even realize it’s ideology.
Further back in history, look at phlogiston, look at how Boltzmann was demonized, look at the meteorite controversy.
Your argument makes no sense because you assume that training in a field automatically brings in a tempered, objective viewpoint with no tint of ideology. We know this is false.
Picking examples where the experts got it wrong does not prove that the non-expert are more likely to get it right.
Plumbers get things wrong sometimes, do you see that as a logical reason to get teachers to plumb your house?
Aerospace engineers get things wrong sometimes, do you see that as a logical reason to get dentists to build rockets?
Mechanics get things wrong sometimes, do you see that as a logical reason to get cartoonists to fix your car?
You’ve totally missed my point.
You said that experts make better decisions than amateurs. I point out with my numerous examples that corruptible humans often put ideology before science. You then say that experts sometimes make mistakes, without taking into consideration my point that these people were not making scientific decisions.
Egads, the modern scientist is as arrogant and as much of a blowhard as the scholastics were in Newton’s day.
Your point is only relevant if you’re going to argue that judges are more prone to corruption by their ideology than non-judicially trained people acting as judges would be.
I think that’s the opposite of reality.
As for scientists, not relevant to the topic, but I do think the accusation that scientists are notably corrupted by their ideology is itself a charge built to serve the ideology of those making it.
Your point is only relevant if you’re going to argue that judges are more prone to corruption by their ideology than non-judicially trained people acting as judges would be.
Judges are human, so are scientists. I explain how an expert can make mistakes when they put ideology above their expertise, Your reply is a twisted, mangled mis-interpretation of what I had to say.
It’s very simple: judges, like other people can make mistakes that are very, very human. This means that just because they are an expert, doesn’t mean they’re making the correct decision. This isn’t hard, really.
I would love a court picked by President Cruz. They would (hopefully) be originalists.
You both are forgetting that ideology is what is important in judges. Their interpretation of the law and constitution is informed by their ideology. We would all like to say justice is blind, but it isn’t.
Originalism is just as much an ideology as progressivism. I’d much rather have a non-lawyer or non-judge who believed in Originalism than a progressive who may be a lawyer or a judge but who doesn’t believe in the constitution or laws beyond how they can be twisted for party power or ideological fads.
A progressive with no legal experience wouldn’t be any different than one with legal experience. Hopefully, the same would be true with an originalist.
Hmm, not being American I admit I’ve probably not given enough weight to the importance of ideology in the interpretation of your Constitution.
Your interpretation is obviously that the letter of the law in the US (or at least the interpretation of the Constitution) is far more open to interpretation than it is in all other developed countries.
However, you state that “Originalism is just as much an ideology as progressivism”, and then go on to express your support for the appointment of judges willing to interpret the Constitution in ways that fit your own ideological fads. Personally I suspect that judicially trained judges would be more centrist in their interpretation of the constitution than untrained ideologues less encumbered by legal precedents, and that America would be better off with a centrist Supreme Court than one that makes rulings that swing wildly from left to right and back again depending on the results of presidential elections.
You probably don’t realize it, but you just demonstrated how profound a misunderstanding of the Constitution it is possible for a foreigner, or a foreigner wannabe to have.
Andrew, as a non-American, you may not have ever read a Supreme Court decision, but I’d be surprised to hear that Jon has read any either. Read a few. Pick a famous one, pick a few obscure ones at random. You’ll see that any role ideology plays is quite minor and you’ll see expertise is very necessary!
Bob-1, Wow, that’s a relief, after all the importance that Jon and Wodun have been attaching to ideology I was starting to think the US had some sort of banana republic legal system.
Rand Simberg
March 14, 2016 At 8:12 PM
You probably don’t realize it, but you just demonstrated how profound a misunderstanding of the Constitution it is possible for a foreigner, or a foreigner wannabe to have.
What the hell is a “foreigner wannabe”?
Someone born American, but hates it, and wants to make it into someplace different.
Like Barack Obama.
Well, I can put your mind at ease on that one, UK born, persuaded my parents to move to NZ when I was 6 months old, lived here ever since.
When Melville Davisson Post wrote “It is the dead who govern” he must have been thinking of the founding fathers. When do you guys think you’ll be old enough to be governed by the living?
Well, I wasn’t accusing you of being a “foreigner wannabe.” Just a foreigner.
Which you seem to be. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but no reason for you to understand the Constitution or its basis.
Based on what’s on offer, we’re better off with the dead.
Woden, I totally agree. All I wanted to do was point out to Andrew that there is no such thing as an objective opinion. There is a reason judges have “opinions”.
The one change which would improve America the most: make admission to the Bar a disqualification from ever holding public office in the future. Lawyers should not write laws. It is a conflict of interest. Lawyers should instead be advising lawmakers.
There’s a claim circulating (which I put no stock in) that the “titles of nobility” clause in the Constitution already blocks lawyers from legitimately holding such public office. Something about the title “esquire” applied to lawyers.
What we really need is laws that non-lawyers can understand.
If the goal is to have a system that works better, change the system. Replacing the experts in the system with amateurs is what communist revolutionaries are infamous for.
Maybe the people deciding who the experts will be is the problem.
All too often a so called “expert” is no better than a has-been drip under pressure, or a political partisan.
The mistake you are making is assuming that all judges base their decisions on what laws say rather than their ideology. In order to get judges to act the way you think they do, you have to find judges with an ideology of originalism, which is not what our friends to the left look to when they become judges or when they hire them.
In fact, our friends to the left go so far as to say that their ideology trumps what laws or the constitution says.
I think the mistake that many people are making at this point is that they’re taking the arguments of a New Zealander (Andrew_W) as somehow relevant to the discussion of the qualifications of judges who sit on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
While I find outside opinions to be somewhat enlightening to the mindset of the speaker, in this case they’re nigh but distracting. I’m not a hardcore nationalist or anything, but why does it matter what people outside our country think should be the qualifications to hold offices in our country? We don’t sit around ragging on the Queen or Parliament…
Fair enough, but what’s your opinion? Jon and Wodun think ideology has a major influence on Supreme Court judges in terms of their rulings, Bob-1 thinks it doesn’t, and doubts Jon has ever read a Supreme Court decision.
I’m quite aware of how they are written. Please don’t insult me. I don’t pontificate on New Zealand laws for the very reason that I’m ignorant on them.
Andrew, as a non-American, you may not have ever read a Supreme Court decision, but I’d be surprised to hear that Jon has read any either. Read a few. Pick a famous one, pick a few obscure ones at random. You’ll see that any role ideology plays is quite minor and you’ll see expertise is very necessary!
Bob–you missed my point, too. How freaking hard is it to understand that a person’s “objective” viewpoint can be tainted by ideology? That is all that I’m saying. It reaaaaalllly is not that hard to understand this.
Andrew wants to say that there exists a realm of pure thought where people can make objective decisions. You know, what you always think you are doing but are oblivious to your own prejudices.
And yes, I’ve read some cases.
Wow, that’s a relief, after all the importance that Jon and Wodun have been attaching to ideology I was starting to think the US had some sort of banana republic legal system.
Everyone has an ideology except for you. How surprising.
Jon, everyone has an ideology, but that doesn’t mean that it affects everything we do, if a man is before a court charged with murdering his wife with a knife in the kitchen, and forensic evidence points to his guilt, how do you believe that ideology is going to have a significant affect on judge and jury?
In most countries government writes laws with the intent of having those be as unambiguous as possible, over here we see laws that can be interpreted differently by different people as bad law, so ideology of judge and jury becomes unimportant.
Are things really that different in the cases the US Supreme Court rules on?
Yes.
How so in these recent cases?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-648_d18e.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10008_k537.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1382_d18f.pdf
What is the value wasting our time cherry picking cases? It demonstrates nothing about the general principle.
Cherry picking is deliberately selecting a biased sample, those are simply the 3 most recent decisions.
Here’s a list of the last 23 decisions, I doubt there’s much ideology in that lot either.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx
The fact that some decisions don’t have ideology involved doesn’t meant that none do.
You’ll see that any role ideology plays is quite minor and you’ll see expertise is very necessary!
Gosh, Bob, are you saying that lawyers need to be an expert on the law? I really didn’t realize that. You know, if I am taking someone to court, I now know that I should get a lawyer! Do you think that a patent dispute would require a patent lawyer or should I get an expert on environmental law? I’m confused, please help me.
And, as usual, you’ve missed my point: there is no such thing as an objective, expert decision.