![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A message for the Court.
Jul. 5th, 2005 10:25 pmBush and Congress are preparing to grapple over who's going to replace Sandra Day O'Connor (and likely, in the next couple years, Rehnquist), and the rest of us get to live with the results. But although no one asked my opinion about what kind of person should take the bench, I'm going to tell you what kind of person shouldn't.
There was a (thankfully) short-lived TV series on a few years ago called "First Monday," dramatizing various (fake) cases before the Supreme Court and following the decision process of the (fake) justices, particularly Novelli, the youngest member and supposed "swing vote" (who as far as I can recall voted with the same group of four every time). It was largely inane how Novelli came to his decisions -- they were never based on any principles higher than "It feels good to go this direction," which is no way to run a Constitution.
But there was one episode in particular that cheezed me off. The subject of the case was rights of the parent vs. rights of the child, and as the episode and the case proceeded, Novelli also had to deal with a personal decision on the same subject: should his own son, aged 16, go with his friends on a trip to Europe? Could his own child be entrusted with that responsibility? So Novelli considered the matter, considered the maturity of his son and his son's friends, then finally set a few ground rules for the trip and let his kid go off into the greater world.
And then here comes the moment where Novelli (and the series writers) missed the point completely: he decides that since his kid is mature enough to handle that big a decision, any kid that age should have the same such right, and he rules in favor of the child in the case.
And I wanted to shake Novelli by his robed shoulders and call him an idiot. You don't know what the maturity level of the kid in the case was. The parents are the best judge of that. You, as your own son's father, knew what your own son's maturity level was, and what the specifics of his own decision were, and you made your choice for him based on that. But the mere fact that the other kid is also 16 does not mean they're on the same level! And you came to your decision for your own kid based on days of deliberation, and set limits for him, then denied parents across the nation the same right to make the same deliberation or form the same limits!
Which is where we come to the basic temptation of all justices in the Supreme and appellate courts: to think they're wiser than us on all matters. To think that because they sit on a bench in Washington, unaccountable to anyone, they can decide all that is Right and Wrong in the universe, rather than let those closer to the specific situation make the call.
To think of themselves as our parents.
And so here's my message to the people on the Court now and those to come.
You aren't my mother. And if you think you are, you've got no right to wear the robes.
There was a (thankfully) short-lived TV series on a few years ago called "First Monday," dramatizing various (fake) cases before the Supreme Court and following the decision process of the (fake) justices, particularly Novelli, the youngest member and supposed "swing vote" (who as far as I can recall voted with the same group of four every time). It was largely inane how Novelli came to his decisions -- they were never based on any principles higher than "It feels good to go this direction," which is no way to run a Constitution.
But there was one episode in particular that cheezed me off. The subject of the case was rights of the parent vs. rights of the child, and as the episode and the case proceeded, Novelli also had to deal with a personal decision on the same subject: should his own son, aged 16, go with his friends on a trip to Europe? Could his own child be entrusted with that responsibility? So Novelli considered the matter, considered the maturity of his son and his son's friends, then finally set a few ground rules for the trip and let his kid go off into the greater world.
And then here comes the moment where Novelli (and the series writers) missed the point completely: he decides that since his kid is mature enough to handle that big a decision, any kid that age should have the same such right, and he rules in favor of the child in the case.
And I wanted to shake Novelli by his robed shoulders and call him an idiot. You don't know what the maturity level of the kid in the case was. The parents are the best judge of that. You, as your own son's father, knew what your own son's maturity level was, and what the specifics of his own decision were, and you made your choice for him based on that. But the mere fact that the other kid is also 16 does not mean they're on the same level! And you came to your decision for your own kid based on days of deliberation, and set limits for him, then denied parents across the nation the same right to make the same deliberation or form the same limits!
Which is where we come to the basic temptation of all justices in the Supreme and appellate courts: to think they're wiser than us on all matters. To think that because they sit on a bench in Washington, unaccountable to anyone, they can decide all that is Right and Wrong in the universe, rather than let those closer to the specific situation make the call.
To think of themselves as our parents.
And so here's my message to the people on the Court now and those to come.
You aren't my mother. And if you think you are, you've got no right to wear the robes.
