Sandra Day O'Connor: Experience Matters
Ria Misra
Contributor
Posted:
07/1/09
Add Sandra Day O'Connor's voice to the chorus saying that, yes, life experiences do and should matter when choosing a new Supreme Court justice.
In an interview with Walter Isaacson at the Daily Beast, the former justice talks about everything from the gender balance of the court (she's disappointed that the spot she vacated was not filled by a woman and is glad to see a woman nominated this time) to how to educate young people about the judicial system. (She plugs the interactive online games soon to come on her Web site.)
Most interesting, though, are her reflections on what it means to have a diversity of experience on the bench. Says O'Connor: "It's important for the Supreme Court to have a broader set of life experiences than just people who have served as judges. Judge Sotomayor's appointment would mean that all nine justices are products of the federal courts of appeals."
It seems to me that Sotomayor's experiences do go beyond just the court of appeals and she does, indeed, bring a set of life and professional experiences to the bench that is currently missing. She would make an excellent addition to the high court. But, looking forward at the bench as a whole, it's interesting to ponder other professions from which we might draw justice candidates.
Legislators, another obvious pool for future justice picks, might be a difficult sell to get through an increasingly partisan confirmation process. Another option is academia, and I'm not talking about just law schools. Why not a scientist on the bench? It seems that having a justice with a solid grounding in science and technology, as well as law, would be incredibly valuable, especially as more and more cases involving science -- like the recent decision on the rights of prisoners to DNA tests -- make it through to the high court.
In an interview with Walter Isaacson at the Daily Beast, the former justice talks about everything from the gender balance of the court (she's disappointed that the spot she vacated was not filled by a woman and is glad to see a woman nominated this time) to how to educate young people about the judicial system. (She plugs the interactive online games soon to come on her Web site.)
Most interesting, though, are her reflections on what it means to have a diversity of experience on the bench. Says O'Connor: "It's important for the Supreme Court to have a broader set of life experiences than just people who have served as judges. Judge Sotomayor's appointment would mean that all nine justices are products of the federal courts of appeals."
It seems to me that Sotomayor's experiences do go beyond just the court of appeals and she does, indeed, bring a set of life and professional experiences to the bench that is currently missing. She would make an excellent addition to the high court. But, looking forward at the bench as a whole, it's interesting to ponder other professions from which we might draw justice candidates.
Legislators, another obvious pool for future justice picks, might be a difficult sell to get through an increasingly partisan confirmation process. Another option is academia, and I'm not talking about just law schools. Why not a scientist on the bench? It seems that having a justice with a solid grounding in science and technology, as well as law, would be incredibly valuable, especially as more and more cases involving science -- like the recent decision on the rights of prisoners to DNA tests -- make it through to the high court.