—
Andrew Cohen. Not that I pretend that Andrew Cohen reads my blog, but I’d offer the same comments that I made earlier with respect to the Supreme Court’s approach to oral argument. Tough questions at oral argument don’t necessarily mean that a justice is going to vote against a law; sometimes they pepper litigants with tough questions because they want the litigants to help the justices themselves respond to foreseeable objections when they go to write their opinion. As frustrating as it can be to hear Scalia flippantly conjure up nightmares of 'broccoli bondage,’ it’s certainly conceivable that he was going down that road with an ulterior motive.
I do, however, take Cohen’s point with regard to the lower circuits. Though I think that merely speaks more to the idea that the Supreme Court is as much a political institution as it is a legal institution. The only way judges get on the Supreme Court is by being hand-picked by a politician for the job. There’s plenty of extremely competent jurists of diverse political and legal philosophies who are qualified to sit on the High Court. But the people who make the cut are selected with certain policy goals in mind, and not simply because they’re qualified judges.
- winedarkly reblogged this from letterstomycountry
- redshift-13 liked this
- sarahlee310-blog reblogged this from letterstomycountry
- nomadicfille liked this
- medbert reblogged this from letterstomycountry
- jkruton reblogged this from letterstomycountry
- sarahlee310-blog liked this
- excitablehonky liked this
- letterstomycountry posted this