There are nine Justices of the Supreme Court of our Glorious Union, not seven as there are brides and brothers in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, a genial if odd musical which includes a song the title of which serves as the title to this post. It's hard for me not to feel some fondness for a musical which includes a song and dance about "The Sobbin' Women" even if it serves as a reminder that rape is what's being portrayed as something charming for our entertainment.
But this post, alas, isn't a tribute to that strange product of the American imagination. Instead it is not a tribute to what's taking place now, during a very strange election--the strange appointment of someone to the highest court of the land.
These shows (and they have been shows for quite some time now) are not entertainments, though they seem to entertain some. They're more shows in the sense that show trials are trials. All know the outcome, so what becomes of significance is the quality or lack of quality of the performances of those called upon to play the parts assigned. Those opposing the appointment are limited to strenuously displaying their disapproval and the reasons for it. Those supporting the appointment are required to justify their support, enthusiastically.
Certain things are expected of the nominee. Answers to questions are to be vague, particularly when it comes to matters of importance, when answers are given. Answers are to be avoided if possible. The actual opinions of the nominee on certain issues are not to be sought. One can't ask questions directed to religious beliefs, sexual preferences, or politics for example. Nothing of importance is subject to inquiry, except perhaps professional qualifications, which it seems concern nobody. One can note certain things about the nominee, and make inferences about them. Rarely is there more involved in the process, unless there is a direct accusation of some misconduct, in which case the show becomes even more of a show as the performances take on a melodramatic character.
Where professional qualifications are concerned, it appears the current nominee is well suited to be what she has been for the most part--a professor. She didn't practice law much at all. She's been a federal appeals judge for three years. I argued before the 7th Circuit in 2018, and for all I know she may have been on the panel hearing arguments that day. I can't recall. She clerked for judges.
My personal feeling is that a judge of an appellate court, and so a Supreme Court Justice, benefit immensely from having been a practicing lawyer, or a judge, for quite some time. They should have some sense of what actually takes place in a courtroom, and what's involved in representing clients in civil or criminal practice. They should have observed what the law and what courts do to actual people, what it's like to be a part of the legal system and to encounter it.
Ambrose Bierce described litigation as a machine which you enter as a pig and leave as a sausage. It's something that should be experienced by those who sit in judgment of litigants and lower courts if they are to have any grasp of the law as it functions, not merely as an abstraction--in practice, not merely in theory.
There can be no question where her sympathies lie. It would be naive not to expect her personal preferences on great issues to influence her decisions. The only hope is that in her case and in others there is such a respect for the law that personal preferences will be restrained to the extent that what is the law won't be confused with what is believed should be the case. The law is the law, not morality, not religion, not politics, not ideology. If what I read of her religious preference (you know, like sexual preference) is accurate, and she identifies (I can't stop myself, it seems) as a charismatic, pentecostal Christian, it can be hoped that she'll seek inspiration when it comes to decisions of the court from the law rather than anything else.
The world we live in, though, doesn't encourage optimism in this respect. It doesn't encourage optimism in general, in fact, as it encourages thoughtlessness and quick, emotional responses to any problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment