Supreme Court Group Think

Dear Editor,

Our country has shifted dramatically from the country, to the city, then the suburbs; from agricultural, to manufacturing, then to service industries.  We moved West in great numbers.  As a result the greatest universities are now located in every corner, and center, of the country.

Yet, the Supreme Court remains ideologically centered in the Northeast.  All of our justices attended an Ivey League university.  These universities have recently shunned conservative alumni.  They fired a prestigious legal scholar after mobs protested an individual’s constitutional right to legal representation.  These schools used to be the base of free speech.  However, they recently lead anti free speech, “safe space,” movements.

It is becoming necessary to cast a wider net, to start looking at other law schools.  Surely Duke, UNC, Wake Forrest, USC, and others have graduates capable of being Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) justices.  Understandably picking justices from prestigious universities is wise.  Part of the reason these universities are so prestigious is that  justices keep being picked from them exclusively.

The lack of diverse thought is not merely academic.  Group think caused this branch to expand its powers frighteningly.  Several justices have openly communicated that the Supreme Court should intercede when voters make “bad” decisions.  They bypassed the constitutional amendment process by abusing legislation intended to protect racial groups.  They intentionally  confused a behavior with a group that practices a behavior.  Several justices lamented being in awe of the power to ignore votes in a democracy and thousands of years of precedent. They questioned, not if this was in their power, but whether it would help advance or hinder their ideological agenda.  Their job as justices isn’t to advance personal social ideology.  In a democracy, that job is entirely the voters job. They failed to see the dangerous of the new precedent.

This was due to group think which drastically reduces perspectives and solutions to tiny boxes. One justice asked such illogical out of touch questions even the party of the president who made the nomination was critical.  It’s time to widen the selection process to other law schools.  Picking so many justices from two schools makes these schools too powerful.  Every organization is at greater risk of abuses from group think.

Alan Burke