Supreme Court Justices - Best and the Brightest?

[Utah]

...or morons.

I have always thought that the supreme court represented the best and the brightest, even if the justices had their own idiological slants. Maybe I was naive.

I have been reading a bunch of cases and the writing is simply tortured and the logic is obviously flawed. Its not some much in the decisions, but its often in the logic to get there. Often, they fail to address major points of contention, even if just to dismiss them. I wouldnt give a college student a C for some of these opinions.

I could understand if they had to write these on the fly and turn them around in a day. But they have 6 months. Am I missing something?

Is intelligence a big factor for nominating a justice or are they simply political appointees? Will a justice on the supreme court be smarter than your average circuit court judge?

[ArchAngel71857]

I wouldnt give a college student a C for some of these opinions.

Alot of the time, their law clerks crank out the opinions. Save for very big decisions (Bush v. Gore, etc...) the Justices don't write every word.

-AA

[jcx]

While I think all of them are certainly smarter than average, I actually think only a modicum of intelligence is necessary to be a Supreme Court Justice. It should be as simple as examining a case, thinking to oneself, "Is this arguement supported by the Constitution?" and then ruling yes or no. The problems begin when you get justices who think they are smarter than everyone else and come up with interpretations of the Constitution that can be called creative at best. 90% or more of the cases that came to the SC could be dismissed immediately if anyone paid attention to the 10th Amendment anymore.

IMO the only justices that can be counted on to reliably interpret the constitution are CJ Renquist, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia (Once in a while Kennedy or O'Connor rule correctly, but not all that often). The rest are trash. This is not a partisan comment. I am no Republican, and 7 of the 9 were appointed by Republicans, so the shoddy state of affairs at the court can really be blamed more on the GOP than anything else.

As a side note for any Republican or conservative who is unhappy with the current court, know that many of the 5-4 decisions that are handed down that further leftist causes can be put at the feet of a Republican named Arlen Specter. It is because of his seditious actions that we have David Souter instead of Robert Bork on the court. Appointed by GHWB, Souter has turned into one of the most liberal activist justices ever. Mr Bush's son showed how much he values party over principle by actively campaigning for Specter in a neck and neck primary with a true conservative in PA earlier this year. The GOP is morally bankrupt and could care less about conservative principles. I for one decided a few elections back that I would no longer be a reliable lemming for them. If enough Republicans stay home or vote 3rd party this Nov they may get the message that they can't ignore their base. Sorry for this long aside but your post struck at the core of something I am passionate about.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
Clarence Thomas

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

[J.R.]

Just because they don't write the first draft doesn't excuse them from their obligation to decide the case and issue an opinion. Their name is on the opinion, they picked their clerks, they are repsonsible. Its irrelevant that they rely on cheap labor to do most of the legwork, its their, and not their law clerks' opinion. They didn't let Theodore Olson off easy during oral arguments because he didn't write every word of briefs submitted on behalf of the United States.

[Riverman]

They are all very bright, with the possible exception of Thomas. I believe Scalia to be the most intelligent IQ wise.

The reason that many opinions are so bad is that it is that many justices decide what they think should happen and then attempt to square it with the constitution instead of applying the document to each individual case. For example roe v. wade.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Alot of the time, their law clerks crank out the opinions

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Their law clerks are generally incredibly intelligent and talented people.

[HDPM]

I don't think Thomas is an idiot. I have seen him interviewed or give talks and he is not a moron. Bestest or brightest, that is a different question.


Because the process is a political one, you don't necessarily get the best and brightest people. You get a certain type of person who has a certain level of intelligence, but the process doesn't guarantee the "best" however that might be defined. Certainly supreme ct justices are above average. I doubt they are far ahead of the average circuit court judge. Old saying about why circuit court guys are called judges and supremes called justices is that there is no justice in a circuit court and there are no judges on the supreme court.


/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[elwoodblues]

One thing to keep in mind is that the written decisions of the court are just that, opinions of THE COURT. While one justice (or his/her clerks) may actually put the pen to paper, the opinion is one that is agreed to by a majority of the court. This is an important thing to consider because majority opinions probably don't reflect the exact opinions of the authoring justice because there is much compromise that goes into drafting the opinion. People will often comment that dissenting opinions are "better" than majority opinions. Dissenting opinions more accurately reflect the thinking of the individual justice because they aren't confined to the group-think that goes into writing a majority opinion.

[elwoodblues]

Just wanted to give an example so you could see how bad it can get. The famous Bakke case (affirmative action). The holding of the court was that affirmative action is legal but quotas are not.

Of the 9 members on the court in the Bakke case, any non-lawyer have a guess as to how many members of the court would have agreed with that decision? (answer below)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Only 1. Essentially 4 justices said that Affirmative Action was wrong; 4 said that it was okay - and 1 said that it was wrong when it was a quota but okay otherwise. The result was that the 4 Affirmative Action Wrong justices agreed with the part outlawing quotas (thereby making a majority on that issue) and the 4 Pro Affirmative Action agreed with the part allowing other types of affirmative action (thereby making a majority on that issue).