Justice Oprah Winfrey? Exploring the Idea of a Non-Lawyer on the Supreme Court

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

Ever since Fox News did a survey about who should succeed Supreme Court Justice David Souter and included the possibility of talk show host and general media diva Oprah Winfrey, the entertainment world has been abuzz with the possibility of "O" taking the bench. Is this what it takes to get the average American interested in the Supreme Court nomination process? Anyway, I hate to burst the collective bubble, but Judge Judy has a better chance at occupying those hallowed robes. At least she's passed the bar exam (though she would have to take a tremendous pay cut).

Not that passing the bar, or even a passing glance at a law school application, is a prerequisite.

OK, I'll be the first to admit it; I didn't know that a person who's never been to law school could be a justice on the Supreme Court until embarrassingly recently. The fact is, the Constitution gives no qualifications a justice must meet, other than gaining the approval of the Senate.

There is a sociohistorical reason, I believe, for my lack of knowledge about what qualifies a Supreme Court justice. Being under 30, I have only witnessed the most absurd arguments about whether a certain nominee should become a justice for life. Those arguments, while heated, had little to do with qualifications. Indeed, they were mostly about abortion, sexual harassment and code words such as "judicial activism." Thus, I knew all about litmus tests and coke cans, and nothing about what constitutes true jurisprudence.

I had, in the debate over the qualification of Harriet Miers in 2005, been exposed to the idea of a non-judge being catapulted from lawyer to the highest court in the land. But this was a more common experience for a nominee than many let on at the time. In fact, some of our best-known Supreme Court justices had no judicial experience prior to serving on the Supreme Court, including John Marshall ("the great Chief Justice"), Earl Warren, William Rehnquist and Louis Brandeis.

But every justice has been a lawyer. And, according to this Christian Science Monitor piece on the Miers nomination, those who have no judicial experience generally have to work hard to make up for it with impressive accomplishments from other areas of the courtroom or in public service.

Considering the vitriol reserved for lawyers in this country, however, it is somewhat surprising that no president seems to have considered someone for the Supreme Court who was not a lawyer. The job is certainly challenging, but with the huge staff of law clerks at hand and assuming one uses the long summer break for studying, it's certainly possible that a smart, willing person could pick this up without the law school experience under their belt.

According to the Supreme Court Historical Society, the first few years of the court's existence were consumed mainly by pomp and circumstance, fashion and idle chatter, suited perfectly for a television talk show host:

But only three of the Justices had reached New York, a temporary capital city, in 1790, when the Court convened for the first time. Required by law to sit twice a year, it began its first term with a crowded courtroom and an empty docket. Appeals from lower tribunals came slowly; for its first three years the Court had almost no business at all.

Spectators at early sessions admired "the elegance, gravity, and neatness" of Justices' robes. But when Cushing walked along New York streets in the full-bottom professional wig of an English judge, little boys trailed after him and a sailor called, "My eye! What a wig!" Cushing never wore it again.

Not only is she fashionable -- something that has been lacking on the court presumably ever since the Cushing days -- but Oprah is damn charming. I'd like to see how many senators she could win over with just her smile alone. And let's face it: Oprah is overflowing in the empathy department.

But there are more than a few problems with the most influential woman on television. First and foremost is how she has used her influence. There are times when she brings voice to problems and issues no one else is talking about, catapulting them to prominence. Other times she seems more like she works for QVC, pushing the latest diet or hormone therapy treatment, with little regard for the sheeple audience willing to follow her off a cliff. And do we really want to bring someone onto the highest court in the land who couldn't tell that James Frey was full of bollocks? Even Judge Judy would have shouted that guy down with her famous "Baloney!" reprisal.

Furthermore, I don't think the nation could handle her transformation from "Oprah" to "Justice Winfrey." She has ascended to the realm we reserve for divas like Cher and Madonna. Oprah no longer has a last name.

The mere fact that the president doesn't have to nominate a lawyer to fill Souter's robe doesn't mean we need to turn this into a popularity contest. I don't have a specific non-lawyer in mind who would be able to fulfill the duties of the Supreme Court, but also be able to interpret the Constitution so that it has meaning and resonance for real people living in this century. But I know there's someone out there.

My dream candidate is a Hispanic lesbian professor of Constitutional history who spends her weekends teaching literacy to destitute mothers and their children. How's that for empathetic?

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Do you have someone in mind who's not a lawyer but would make a great Supreme Court justice? Share your thoughts by commenting below.

Technorati Tags: Analysis