Matt, I must admit that I am very sympathetic to the points you have been expressing - especially the one above about how attending elite schools can result in brainwashing. Focusing solely on the brainwashing effect of attending elite schools however may be blinding us to a larger problem (one which I believe Eben was trying to enlighten us to) and that is the brainwashing that occurs in law school.

Law schools treat law as a science with the all-important skill of "thinking like a lawyer" serving as a replacement for the scientific method. As such, lawyers are trained to be faithful to "the law," rendering their assessment of the subject overly technical and devoid of a proper understanding on how the law affects (to use the words of BP's idiot chairman) the "small people." I think some of the discontent being expressed is reflective of a desire for all lawyers, not simply the ivy leaguers, to demonstrate their understanding and acceptance of the simple truth that is inscribed above the Georgetown Law library - "Law is but the means - Justice is the end."

-- TaylorMcGowan - 18 Jun 2010

Perhaps. But I guess what I am saying is it is the act of attending an elite school can brainwash you over time. Sotomayor may have come from humbler beginnings, but, after 7 years of an Ivy education she probably is equipped the same magnifying glass that the other 8 justices are using to read the constitution.

Also, I'm not arguing that no Crimsons or Yalies belong on the court--I'm saying it should not be exclusive.

-- MatthewZorn - 17 Jun 2010

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

Well, I certainly would not want to have no Harvard / Yale people on the bench. Concisely, I suppose my major issue is this: diversity. There is diversity of all different kinds: racial, religious, gender, geographic, etc. Educational diversity, to me, is more important than the whole lot.

To analogize with philosophy, our conceptions and structuring of the real world into space-time is largely shaped by survival instincts and the "nurture" around us. The way we breakdown our surroundings is very much a product of the way our surroundings breakdown us. But, just because we choose to arrange our world in a certain way does not mean it is any more right or wrong than any other way. As we learned with Veblen / classical economists, neither way of looking at the problem is right or wrong--they are just different ways of looking at an issue. A similar case can be made for learning law at the elite schools. Sure, the justices have different labels like "originalist" or whatnot, but, the fact is they are all from the same elite crop and to that extent have been conditioned by eliteness.

As for the President comment--good point. I suppose, since the people have a more direct say in who is President, I am a little more comfortable with the Ivy dominance. Of course, I find the use of 20 years sneaky, since, over the course of 20 years 16 of those years were filled by 2 people. Stretch the time frame out a little and you get less Ivy league pre-eminence.

Nevertheless, to answer your comment more directly: I am bothered a little by eliteness in all spheres of human existence, but especially government and the judiciary. It seems like a symptom of baby-boom eliteness (and humanity) to (1) perpetuate eliteness (2) try to become even more elite and (3) screw everyone else.

-- MatthewZorn - 16 Jun 2010