Just thought this discussion could use a little perspective. First of all, there seems to be some notion that there were ‘glory days’ of the Supreme Court when it wasn’t full of intellectuals. Perhaps this is true in some sense, but I think that is partially because until 1846, no justice had attended a formal law school (and there was a sitting justice who did not have a law degree as late as 1957). Only five years later, in 1851, the first justice from Harvard Law was appointed. Of the justices who did complete law school, half went to Harvard or Yale, and over two-thirds went to what are now the so-called ‘T14.’ Most of the rest still went to very highly regarded schools. So to say the court hasn’t always been dominated by intellectuals is a little misleading, although I can concede that now it is only Harvard and Yale, which might make some difference. (Disclosure: facts based on Wikipedia, should admittedly due better research but it seems accurate)

Second, there seems to be the notion that the justices are bred elites who have no concept of the real world. While some of them certainly were born into wealth, I know that cannot be said for Sotomayor or Thomas, and my impression is that Ginsburg and Alito grew up in at best working to middle class situations. I can say from personal experience that just because you attend an elite educational institution does not mean you grew up as an elite or anything close to it. And even if you did, if you are exceptionally intelligent and are pursuing a legal career, why wouldn’t you want to go to the best school where you would be offered the greatest resources?

Also, aren’t we forgetting that these people do stuff after law school, and perhaps their nominations might be based more on that? If going to Yale or Harvard was a one-way ticket to the Supreme Court, I would have studied more for the LSAT.

-- RorySkaggs - 16 Jun 2010