# Hey, you get to appoint the entire Supreme Court! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 8, 2005, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693 "2005-09-08T19:21:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/21 "2005-09-08T23:29:29Z")
Just a reminder that constitutional interpretation is only part of the Supreme Court’s role, though it’s the one that gets the most attention. The SC has to, for example, deal with issues of Federal Commercial law. This is why it would be useful to have at least former corporate lawyer on board. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/22 "2005-09-08T23:40:13Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Well, because I don’t believe that there _is_ a correct method of constitutional interpretation “Correct” probably isn’t the right word, which implies other methods are incorrect. I’d probably say “best”, which would be a textual interpretation. > [@](#): > > – and I wholeheartedly recommend that everyone read Daniel Farber and Suzanne Sherry’s book on the topic, Desperately Seeking Certainty I will! It’ll be a good book to read during the confirmation hearings next week. I just finished a book by Scalia (A Matter of Interpretation), and it was a bit of a disapointment. More like a magazine article than a book. > [@](#): > > I’m shocked and disappointed that the two of you don’t think that having a “correct method of constitutional interpretation” isn’t by definition making the Supreme Court explicitly political. Because the closer you adhere to the text, the least amount of politics you let influence your judgement. It’s not possible to eliminate politics completely, but we should at least try to minimize its influence, and we certainly shouldn’t try to build it into the system. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/23 "2005-09-09T00:18:04Z")
Lawrence Tribe ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/24 "2005-09-09T00:21:15Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > I have to disagree with **Gadarene**. While all the individuals he (?) mentions would make good Justices, I wouldn’t want a court so weighted toward academia. I would want more people with more experience on the “streets,” for lack of a better word. I’d like to see people with experience in corporate law, criminal law, and politics. Agreed, though not so much with the corporate (i.e., transactional) law part. While I think judicial experience is a must, I want real world experience on the court, not just academic and political experience. I would especially like to break the stranglehold that the federal appeals courts seem to have on Supreme Court nominations over the last 30 years. There are many fine federal trial court and state appeals court judges (which, after all, is where O’Connor came from) who would make excellent Supreme Court picks, and they come with very different experiences than those who’ve spent their professional lives on the federal appeals bench. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/25 "2005-09-09T00:44:40Z")
One of my wild and crazy ideas is to require that federal judicial nominees have served on the state bench first, thus giving you more experienced (and more grounded) federal judges while raising the overall quality of state courts. The fact that many states elect their judges puts the kibosh on the notion, but I still think it’d work. John, textualism does well most of the time. But when it breaks down, it breaks down hard. Farber and Sherry’s chapter on Scalia is fantastic. By the way, I start a two-year stint clerking for a federal trial judge in D.C. in January. I’m terrified. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/26 "2005-09-09T01:07:23Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > John, textualism does well most of the time. But when it breaks down, it breaks down hard. Farber and Sherry’s chapter on Scalia is fantastic. I stopped by my local library during my evening walk, and they don’t have that book. Guess I’ll have to buy it… In those instances where textualism breaks down “hard”, is there nothing the legislature can do? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/27 "2005-09-09T01:38:06Z")
Scalia’s the public choice guy. Ask him about relying on the legislature to make things right. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/28 "2005-09-09T01:45:00Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Scalia’s the public choice guy. Ask him about relying on the legislature to make things right. 🙂 I will do so the very next time I see him. 🙂 But I don’t think Scalia would expect either the legislature or the courts to “make things right”, only to express the will of the people as to how they wish to be governed. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/29 "2005-09-09T01:53:58Z")
The people neither write nor interpret the laws, though. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/30 "2005-09-12T03:50:33Z")
Good responses so far; thanks. I’d want to be realistic as to who the Senate would actually confirm, and as President would welcome suggestions from the ABA and from legal-affairs groups across the ideological spectrum. My criteria (in order of importance) for the nine I’d appoint would be: 1. Very smart, capable people who are “learned in the law,” with impeccable ethics 2. A Chief Justice who is personable and skilled at friendly persuasion, with proven administrative ability 3. At least two liberals and at least two conservatives; the other five center-left 4. At least one each from New England, the South, the Midwest, and the West 5. At least three women 6. At least one black 7. At least one Latino 8. No more than five current Federal appellate judges 9. At least two with personal experience in elective office 10. At least two with litigation experience 11. At least one with experience in corporate law 12. At least one with experience in science/technology law ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/31 "2005-09-12T07:24:08Z")
I vote for the Doobie Brothers. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693/32 "2005-09-12T15:05:59Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I vote for the Doobie Brothers. The Michael McDonald version or the non-Michael McDonald version? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-you-get-to-appoint-the-entire-supreme-court/320693.md?page=1)