Supreme Justice
Consider this: is it truly justice if things always go the way you want. Are any of us so perfect in our opinions and understanding that our way is always the right way?
The appointment and confirmation process for Supreme Court justices has devolved into such a spitting contest of partisans that any sense of perspective is lost. If we boil down what the advocates on all sides are saying when they talk about qualifications is that they want a justice who will decide things their way. As if we were god-like in our knowledge and understanding.
The better test, in my not so humble opinion, is not of a nominee's views, but of their intellect and integrity. Are they sharp enough to hone in on small but critical points? Are they educated enough to bring a broad understanding to the decision making process? Are they intellectually curious enough to explore opinions outside their own? Are they honest enough with themselves to recognize their own biases? Are they of deep enough character to make the difficult choice because it is what is right even when not only does the general population disagree, and the majority of their colleagues disagree, but even their own personal views and political leanings are opposed to such a decision? But because a decision is logically consistent with the constitution and is the right and just thing to do will they still do it, in spite of their own feelings?
The dog and pony show that will open this summer in the Senate will never answer these questions. I knew the questions before. I never thought about how counter productive the Judiciary hearings are until just now when I read this OP ED from Stephen L. Carter. (You may remember his book "The Culture of Disbelief" from a decade or so ago.)
The appointment and confirmation process for Supreme Court justices has devolved into such a spitting contest of partisans that any sense of perspective is lost. If we boil down what the advocates on all sides are saying when they talk about qualifications is that they want a justice who will decide things their way. As if we were god-like in our knowledge and understanding.
The better test, in my not so humble opinion, is not of a nominee's views, but of their intellect and integrity. Are they sharp enough to hone in on small but critical points? Are they educated enough to bring a broad understanding to the decision making process? Are they intellectually curious enough to explore opinions outside their own? Are they honest enough with themselves to recognize their own biases? Are they of deep enough character to make the difficult choice because it is what is right even when not only does the general population disagree, and the majority of their colleagues disagree, but even their own personal views and political leanings are opposed to such a decision? But because a decision is logically consistent with the constitution and is the right and just thing to do will they still do it, in spite of their own feelings?
The dog and pony show that will open this summer in the Senate will never answer these questions. I knew the questions before. I never thought about how counter productive the Judiciary hearings are until just now when I read this OP ED from Stephen L. Carter. (You may remember his book "The Culture of Disbelief" from a decade or so ago.)
posted by Wake of the Flood at 7:43 AM
1 comments
