I disagree with a lot of what Scalia says about the Constitution--mainly that whole "not a living document" line, which I think is ontologically indefensible*--but at least, if he and I got into it over coffee it'd be pretty obvious in a short time that he knows more about the Constitution than I do.
And I'm okay with that, him being on the Supreme Court for life and all. Some level of Constitutional expertise seems like it ought to be a minimum requirement.
More recent nominees to the high court, on the other hand . . . not so much, apparently.
So is this where we are--substantive knowledge not required (although loyal intimacy with the President can give your case a big boost)? If that's so, the up side is that you may be a lot closer to being an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court than you thought!
Want to find out? Just take this handy self-test on the Constitution, provided by the ACLU. Find out which Justice your own Constitutional views most nearly match, and then be ready to update your resume.
*Woo-hoo! After almost a year on this blog, I finally have a legitimate excuse to use ontologically! Next up: "Ultracrepidarian" --stay tuned!
No comments:
Post a Comment