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.
“Correct” probably isn’t the right word, which implies other methods are incorrect. I’d probably say “best”, which would be a textual interpretation.
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.
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.
Lawrence Tribe
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.
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.
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?
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.
The people neither write nor interpret the laws, though.
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:
-
Very smart, capable people who are “learned in the law,” with impeccable ethics
-
A Chief Justice who is personable and skilled at friendly persuasion, with proven administrative ability
-
At least two liberals and at least two conservatives; the other five center-left
-
At least one each from New England, the South, the Midwest, and the West
-
At least three women
-
At least one black
-
At least one Latino
-
No more than five current Federal appellate judges
-
At least two with personal experience in elective office
-
At least two with litigation experience
-
At least one with experience in corporate law
-
At least one with experience in science/technology law
I vote for the Doobie Brothers.
The Michael McDonald version or the non-Michael McDonald version?