Obama's Supreme Court Pick

OK, so nobody cares what I think about the Supreme Court nomination possibly coming this week, and nobody follows my blog and I haven't even told anyone about it so I am basically talking to the wall in so many ways. However, I am going to outline what I think a good choice for the bench should look like and what kind of qualities they should have.

First, experience with law is absolutely essential. An educated person with a considerable number of years dealing with law, some from both the legislative and judicial sides. I know that these might be hard to come by, but a former lawyer turned senator or something of that nature would suffice, and there are many of those. I think that for the most part this is something everyone can agree on, so I won't say any more about it.

The second aspect is one that would incite more controversy if anyone actually read this who could incite something at all. A Supreme Court justice must understand that the Constitution, for the most part, was written over two centuries ago when many of the systems and institutions in place today were not existence. Thus, they must understand that there is great leeway for interpretation. This knowledge must be applied sparingly and responsibly, but it must be applied. For example, it would be imprudent for a judge to say that giving an average American the right to own an assault rifle is protected under the second amendment. This is not an attack on guns, it is an attack against what is unneccessary in our country. A loose but responsible interpreter is very much needed on the bench.

Lastly, a justice must be able to rise above a case and view it with as much objectivity and pragmatism as possible. In this respect, the nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion of the nominee should not be an issue because they should not play a role in any decision made. A case should be viewed in light of the legal issues and nothing more. There should be as much objectivity in a murder case as in a theft or embezzlement case, and that objectivity cannot be sacrificed in the name of morals or theology. As in all cases, there are the fates of individual people and, often, entire groups or even the entire nation on the line. However, the law itself is concrete. One must be able to look at the law and see legal and illegal. In this sense, a firm judge is also needed by the court.

Many would argue that the second and third qualities argued for above are in apparent contradiction. In some ways they may be, but let me explain. One must view a case in its entirety and see what legal issues are being discussed. One must then view the law as a living document and decide whether the issues being discussed are worthy of condemnation. Using the first example, the law does not specifically forbid assault rifles for an average citizen, but a justice should understand that there is no need for such weapons and that allowing access to them could endanger more people than they would protect.

Being my first post of any substance, I don't know that this will make sense, and i understand that it is quite an ambitious topic. My only hope is that someone will see this and give me insight on how to improve my writing and language to better myself in the future.