David Brooks wonders whether President Obama’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat currently held by John Paul Stephens has what it takes to do the job:
About a decade ago, one began to notice a profusion of Organization Kids at elite college campuses. These were bright students who had been formed by the meritocratic system placed in front of them. They had great grades, perfect teacher recommendations, broad extracurricular interests, admirable self-confidence and winning personalities.
If they had any flaw, it was that they often had a professional and strategic attitude toward life. They were not intellectual risk-takers. They regarded professors as bosses to be pleased rather than authorities to be challenged. As one admissions director told me at the time, they were prudential rather than poetic.
If you listen to people talk about Elena Kagan, it is striking how closely their descriptions hew to this personality type.
I’m not sure I see things in quite this way. A lot of success in life consists in giving the answers that your teachers or bosses expect you to give when they ask you a question and we shouldn’t be particularly surprised if those who have achieved major success in their chosen fields also tend to be people who are likely to give the expected answer. Mavericks and rebels tend not to prosper. Or, at least, what passes for rebellion among the successful is scarcely worthy of the name. As Samuel Johnson said of Lord Chesterfield “This man, I thought, had been a Lord among wits; but, I find, he is only a wit among Lords!”
While it might be more fun for a newspaper columnist to write about poetic justices I’m not sure that’s what we really need. It would take some convincing for me to conclude that giving the expected answer is such a bad thing for a Supreme Court justice.
About Elena Kagan I have no opinion. By all accounts her paper trail doesn’t offer much in the way of clues on what her judicial philosophy might be and, if she is as sober as a judge, her inquisition by the Senate is unlikely to enlighten them or us. In my opinion unless they are egregiously unqualified which Ms. Kagan clearly is not a president’s nominees deserve substantial deference. I think that the senate should have confirmed Robert Bork, that more Democrats should have voted for Roberts and Alito, and that more Republicans should have voted to confirm Sotomayor.
“In my opinion unless they are egregiously unqualified… a president’s nominees deserve substantial deference.”
So if they are simply unqualified you’d be okay with that?
Considering it is a lifetime appointment I think I’ll retain slightly higher standards. (And I too am making no judegments on Kagan here.)
I may mean the same thing by “egregiously unqualified” as you do by “unqualified”. I think I can define “egregiously unqualified” or at least give examples but I’m not sure I can define unqualified. I’m a little concerned that can only be determined retrospectively.
What I mean is that IMO policy preferences and legal philosophy should have little or no role in determining whether a nominee should be appointed.
However, I also believe that the the Court has usurped quite a bit of power since its founding and, consequently, is a lot more important than it should be.
Rake ’em over the coals says I.
Beyond the issue of a nominee’s qualifications, the President’s choice is always a political one, so the confirmation hearing should be a stage where those politics are advanced or exposed.
The uncertainty about the Senate’s role and the qualities of a good justice also keep the President in check from making purely boneheaded decisions. I have some confidence that Kagen will not embarrass this country because the President knows there is a confirmation process that can embarrass him.
I am a near total cynic in this area. There is no such thing as an impartial judge. Ideology dominates. We may as well concede that point and concentrate on questions of competency.
I think Brooks point about breeding kids as he describes is true. I am just not sure how it relates to a judge.
Steve