The upcoming battle over the Supreme Court will be something to see on the idiot box since school’s just about ended for me. But as awful as the confirmations hearings were over current Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, I predict that the one over Elena Kagan maybe even worse. The reason being that these hearings illustrate how vacuous and homogenized our Supreme Court may become.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m all in favor of confirming well-accomplished and superbly educated individuals to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States). And I’m sure Obama’s hand picked candidates are hard working men and women, in this case all women, whose lives showcase the upward mobility possible only in America. The problem though is that all of that simply isn’t enough. As David Brooks of the NY Times points out, the recent Supreme Court nominees under Obama lack much when it comes to being a member of the highest court in the land. He says the biggest issue is the simple fact that both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are ultimately products of professional American meritocracy, a system where only those who are overly cautious about not stepping on anyone’s toes succeed; one where only the submissive, crowd pleasing, and non-risk-taking rise to the top. Elena Kagan perfectly fits this description; her collegues report her as being very cautious, especially in her dealings with other individuals, and she really is not known for any remarkable or unique intellectual positions she has held in regards to the law and politics.
So the problem is that I fear more and more Supreme Court nominees in the future will be like Kagan or worse. Sure they got the credentials, such as an Ivy League education and elite positions within the government and academia, but do they have the right personality and set of experiences that can lead the nation to having a dynamic and truly effective Supreme Court? This I heavily doubt.
Of course, any decision regarding the law should be very “calucated, rational, and measured” but one must understand that the greatest SCOTUS decisions, such as Brown v. BOE, Marbury v. Madison, and you could even say the challenge to end the New Deal, were all the result of a court unafraid to make unpopular choices at the time. When FDR wanted a submissive cout, instead he got one that stuck to the principles of the law and thwarted his New Deal. The same can be said to Brown v. BOE, when the court decided to take action in implementing the Constitution’s founding ideas.
This is what I mean by dynamic.