After listening to this NPR report on possible SCOTUS (Supreme Court) nominee Elena Kagan (click to listen below), it reminded me of two connections to our class.
"Should Kagan's Lack Of Judicial Experience Matter?"- Our brief discussion on Kagan focused on her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. There was a question on what exactly those qualifications are. Here's what the Constitution says: "[The President]...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme [sic] Court" (Article II). This is something most of us already know — it's the President's choice, as long as the Senate approves. But what about specific qualifications? Here's all I could find: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office" (Article III). It's fascinating that there isn't even a qualification that the nominee had been a judge. Furthermore, only a single justice from the landmark Brown v. Board decision had served previously as a judge.
- One of the main reasons recent SCOTUS nominees previously have been lower court judges is that "by looking at a lower court record, a president, or a senator for that matter, can get a reasonably good idea of what a nominee's views are." I connected this notion to the obsession that some of our students have with their own "record" (grades, activities, etc.) accumulated in school.
Are we in danger of becoming a purely "data-driven" society? Think of our previous discussion of how in the future sensors will be embedded in books and shoes to measure everything. Does your own "record" really function as a decent measure of how you want people to see you?