What are great people like when they’re young? Great musicians were often child prodigies when they were young, and so on; but what about future Presidents? Can you look at a man in his 30’s and guess whether he might become President in his 50’s or 60’s? What would you look for? Some of his work colleagues saw Obama as a future President early on; another President started as a drunken frat-boy!
But the Presidency depends on various factors: ambition, campaigning skill, etc. What about Supreme Court Justices? We imagine (or hope for) a Justice to be a man of great wisdom, with a great sense of justice, and, we hope, an over-riding desire to serve humanity. Supreme Court Justice and Potus are the two highest positions in the land but the characteristics of the two positions are — or should be — very different. Potus will usually be political, perhaps very partisan. At their best, Justices are highly non-political.
While musing about this, I reviewed the pre-Court careers of some of the great Supreme Court Justices.
[ul][li] Felix Frankfurter co-founded the ACLU at age 37.[/li][li] Thurgood Marshall founded the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund at age 32, and later successfully argued several important cases including Brown vs Board of Education.[/li][li] David Souter was a Rhodes Scholar and became New Hampshire Attorney General at age 37.[/li][li] Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the first woman to work on two major law reviews: she started at Harvard Law (after putting up with her Dean’s “Why are you at Harvard Law School, taking the place of a man?”), then — wives’ careers were subservient to husbands’ transfers — transferred to Columbia Law where she graduated first in her class.[/li][li] Stephen Breyer wrote several influential law textbooks in his 30’s.[/li][li] Arthur Goldberg arranged merger of AFL-CIO at age 39.[/li][li] William O. Douglas was Chairman of SEC at age 38.[/li][li] Elena Kagan was a Law Professor at age 31, special counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee at age 33, Assistant to the President at age 37.[/li][li] Et cetera.[/li][/ul]
It goes without saying that Supreme Court Justices should be extremely intelligent. For examples both the liberal Sonia Sotomayor and the conservative Antonin Scalia graduated summa cum laude from their law schools.
And if Associate Justices have such impressive resumes, imagine what the Chief Justice should be!
[ul][li] Earl Warren was District Attorney of a major County at age 34; and later served as California Governor.[/li][li] John Marshall played a major role in the ratification of the U.S. Constitution at age 34; and later served as Secretary of State.[/li][li] John Jay negotiated the Treaty of Paris at age 38; later served as Governor of New York.[/li][li] William Howard Taft was appointed judge while still in his 20’s; he later had several important positions including President of the United States.[/li][li] Charles Evans Hughes was a name partner in a major law firm by age 26; and later served as Secretary of State.[/li][li] Et cetera.[/li][/ul]If rising to Associate Justice is a special achievement, rising to Chief Justice is very special!
Or is it? What about the present Chief Justice, John Roberts?
John Roberts was a Member of the Republican National Lawyers Association — not exactly a decoration of non-partisanship. Roberts, working for Ronald Reagan at age 26 spearheaded efforts to gut the Voting Rights Act. He served as ghostwriter for right-wing Congressmen opposed to enabling Negro voters.
Roberts’ lies and racist views didn’t prevail on the Voting Rights Act — the Republican Senator Bob Dole of Kansas came out in support of Voting Rights — but Roberts won the admiration of fellow right-wingers and advocates of voter suppression — and therefore this was the man chosen to be Chief Justice of the United States! :eek:
During the confirmation hearing Roberts lied, suggesting that he viewed VRA as settled law. Instead, as Chief Justice, he overthrew or weakened its provisions at every opportunity.
The article I’m quoting is from 2015. In fact voting rights cases did reach the Supreme Court over the next four years, with inevitable 5-4 votes that can only be seen as deliberately disenfranchising minorities.
If my antipathy toward Roberts is seen as partisan, read comments by a federal Judge: “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy”.