results-based criticism
DC lifers Charles Schumer and Arlen Spector are apparently unhappy with the current jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Schumer feels he was “duped” by then-nominees Roberts and Alito, while Spector wishes to explore whether Roberts and Alito have “lived up” to their promises to continue Supreme Court precedent.
Obviously such sentiments pose a danger to judicial indepedence, as an editorial in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal notes.
To me, however, the real flaw behind the assertions of Schumer and Spector is that they fail to explain why recent Supreme Court decisions are wrong, if that’s what they believe. If you’re going to criticize judicial opinions, you need to be able to explain why the reasoning behind an opinion is incorrect, rather than simply stating your unhappiness with the result. This is just a hunch, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Schumer and Spector have not actually read the opinions that have led to their current feelings.
On a related note, and I hate to keep going back to my bar studies, but prepping for the bar (temporarily) took away several things for me. Spending time with my fiancee, going to weddings, running — all were set aside in order to memorize the finer points of civil procedure.
Included in these costs was my ability and desire to engage in meaningful debates with others, especially as the actual exam drew nearer. A week and half or so ago I met a guy and upon finding out I went to law school and was studying for the bar, he lamented the fact that Supreme Court justices seem to only come from Harvard and Yale law schools. This is a valid point, and I confirmed that the only one to not have gone to either of those schools is Justice Stevens, who attended Northwestern.
To which he asked, “Even Thomas?” I explained that yes, Justice Clarence Thomas went to Yale law school. His response was that Thomas was dumb anyways, or something to that effect.
I regret that I didn’t have the mental fortitude at that point to ask him why he felt this way — it probably would have taken 5 minutes or less to show that his thought was meritless, but I digress.
The point is that one should think twice when they hear another criticize the way the Supreme Court is going without actually explaining what is wrong with this path.
July 30, 2007 at 4:51 pm
[...] B Misc has a post up on the Schumer matter, and he makes the point that those who criticize the Supreme Court ought to be able to back up their criticism with an explanation of why the Court’s decision in a particular case is wrong. More specifically, they should be able to look beyond the result of the case and explain why the reasoning that reached that result is incorrect. B Misc is quite right: nine times out of ten it is the reasoning of a Supreme Court case, not the result it reaches, that is important over time. [...]