| | |
|
KahlilWilliamsThirdPaper 3 - 25 Jun 2009 - Main.KahlilWilliams
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ThirdPaper" |
|---|
Choosing Souter's Replacement
The Candidates | | | The Candidates | |
<
< | Suppose for a moment, that our next Supreme Court justice was to be drawn from the figures we’ve encountered in readings over the course of the semester. Who might you pick? Might we want a guy like Richard Karpinski, who could bring the type of interesting personal background and practical perspective to the bench that might connect the Court with the real world? Well, it’s not clear that Karpinski would want the job, though it might give him a chance to prove that he’s not the low-life lawyer some think. But even if he did, the Supreme Court has become far too prestige obsessed to admit a ponytail wearing wills, divorce, and real estate lawyer with a Temple degree, even if the guy was smart enough (or just smart enough to know he could hire clerks to figure it out). | >
> | Suppose for a moment, that our next Supreme Court justice was to be drawn from the figures we’ve encountered in readings over the course of the semester. Who might you pick? Might we want a guy like Richard Karpinski, who could bring the type of interesting personal background and practical perspective to the bench that might connect the Court with the real world? Well, it’s not clear that Karpinski would want the job, though it might give him a chance to prove that he’s not the low-life lawyer some think. But even if he did, the Supreme Court has become far too prestige obsessed to admit a ponytail-wearing wills, divorce, and real estate lawyer with a Temple degree, even if the guy was smart enough (or just smart enough to know he could hire clerks to figure it out). | | | | |
<
< | (C. Oliver) Robinson would have a far better shot than Karpinski, and would bring both strong academic credentials and an ability to cut through bullshit, not to mention the completely novel viewpoint of a “criminal lawyer” and the willingness to stand up to SCOTUS justice (see the Whizzer White story). But given Robinson’s willingness to take money from clients likely involved in R.I.C.O. worthy behavior, the modern confirmation process gives him little chance even with 60 votes. | >
> | (C. Oliver) Robinson would have a far better shot than Karpinski, and would bring both strong academic credentials and an ability to cut through bullshit, not to mention the completely novel viewpoint of a “criminal lawyer” and the willingness to stand up to SCOTUS justices (see the Whizzer White story). But given Robinson’s willingness to take money from clients likely involved in R.I.C.O. worthy behavior, the modern confirmation process gives him little chance even with 60 votes. | | | Political realities being what they are, the most likely pick is Lord Coleridge (the author is aware that Coleridge served on England’s highest court). Like Justice Robert Jackson, Coleridge served as Solicitor General and Attorney General prior to his appointment to the high court. Having been a prosecutor and advocate before the high Court, Coleridge would bring tremendous institutional knowledge to the bench as well as a familiarity with the challenges and incentives of the parties that appear before him in a substantial number of cases. Coleridge would have a far easier time being than any of our other characters, though choosing him would surpass an opportunity to add diversity to the Court, or to move the Court in a different direction. And that’s precisely why he gets picked.
Qualifications | |
<
< | Mr. Obama has indicated that his choice be “empathetic” , which may be another way of saying that the next justice be attuned the real-world of effects of high court decision-making, with the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes. In addition, any nominee would have to have the intellectual heft to grapple with the toughest issues of the day. Lastly, as I suggested above, the nominee must be able be confirmed. | >
> | Mr. Obama has indicated that his choice be “empathetic” , which may be another way of saying that the next justice be attuned the real-world of effects of high court decision-making, with the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes. In addition, any nominee would have to have the intellectual heft to grapple with the toughest issues of the day. Lastly, as I suggested above, the nominee must be able to be confirmed. | | |
The Confirmation Process |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |