Timothy P. O'Neill: Enough Ivy League judges on top court
[Timothy P. O'Neill, a professor at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago, Illinois, has written and lectured widely on criminal law and criminal procedure. Among his articles was a 2007 piece for the Oklahoma Law Review: "The Stepford Justices: The Need for Experiential Diversity on the Roberts Court." He is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Michigan Law School.]
... Many commentators have noted that this is the first Supreme Court in American history in which every justice has come from exactly the same job: judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But there are other "firsts" that are equally disturbing.
For the first time in American history, not a single justice has had any legislative experience. Not one has ever been elected to Congress, a state legislature or a city council.
For the first time in American history, not a single justice has ever held -- or even run for -- any elective office at any level of government. (Although Souter once served as a state attorney general, that is an appointed office in New Hampshire.)
For the first time in American history, eight of the nine justices attended one of only two law schools: Harvard or Yale. (Although Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated from Columbia, she transferred from Harvard Law School.)
Traditionally, the Supreme Court has been composed not only of former judges, but also lawyers who have come directly from serving as senators, governors, Cabinet members, heads of administrative agencies, and even from private practice. Yet it has been almost 30 years since a justice has been confirmed who was not then a federal appellate judge.
What caused this change? Some point to the acrimony that surrounded the failed appointment of Robert Bork in 1987. Since that time, presidents of both parties have stressed the judicial competence -- not the ideology -- of their appointees. The implied promise is that the technical proficiency of an Ivy League-trained federal appellate judge somehow trumps issues of ideology.
This, of course, is an illusion. The cases that come to the Supreme Court are there precisely because they fall between the cracks of established legal doctrine. There is no single "Ivy League judge's answer" to any issue pending before the Supreme Court....
Read entire article at CNN
... Many commentators have noted that this is the first Supreme Court in American history in which every justice has come from exactly the same job: judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But there are other "firsts" that are equally disturbing.
For the first time in American history, not a single justice has had any legislative experience. Not one has ever been elected to Congress, a state legislature or a city council.
For the first time in American history, not a single justice has ever held -- or even run for -- any elective office at any level of government. (Although Souter once served as a state attorney general, that is an appointed office in New Hampshire.)
For the first time in American history, eight of the nine justices attended one of only two law schools: Harvard or Yale. (Although Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated from Columbia, she transferred from Harvard Law School.)
Traditionally, the Supreme Court has been composed not only of former judges, but also lawyers who have come directly from serving as senators, governors, Cabinet members, heads of administrative agencies, and even from private practice. Yet it has been almost 30 years since a justice has been confirmed who was not then a federal appellate judge.
What caused this change? Some point to the acrimony that surrounded the failed appointment of Robert Bork in 1987. Since that time, presidents of both parties have stressed the judicial competence -- not the ideology -- of their appointees. The implied promise is that the technical proficiency of an Ivy League-trained federal appellate judge somehow trumps issues of ideology.
This, of course, is an illusion. The cases that come to the Supreme Court are there precisely because they fall between the cracks of established legal doctrine. There is no single "Ivy League judge's answer" to any issue pending before the Supreme Court....