Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

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 oprahentertainment 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:Technorati Tags:

Oprah As SCOTUS Justice

Good lord, no!!!! Oprah is immensely wealthy, not because she is smart, but because her staff is filled with marketing geniuses. Oprah's empathy is limited to making sweeping public gestures backed by incredibly bad judgment and lack of foresight. When she gave away the cars, no one in her company thought to check the tax status of a gift that substantial. Ooops! Oprah looks and sounds great on TV or at personal appearances, but there is less there than meets the eye. Eminently unfit for anything but puff piece TV.

She's probably smarter than any justice on the court

She acts silly on TV, for public consumption, but she's deliberate, skilled, and sharp as a razor behind the scenes. And if her staff are the marketing geniuses, why is Oprah the one raking in billions while they work for her? And what does it say about Oprah's judgement that she hired a staff full of geniuses? Oprah didn't start out with a huge staff. Her production staff when she first came to Chicago consisted of only two girls and a gay guy. It was only after raking in the highest ratings in TV history that Oprah could afford to hire a huge staff. Also, talk shows are very much driven by the host. No matter how good the staff is, a talk show will flop if the host doesn't have the smarts to be witty, amusting, fresh, and spontaneous day after day, week after week, year after year. It's an EXTREMELY competetive industry where some of the smartest people have failed. And how does giving away cars with taxes show bad judgment? That's been done for decades on the Prices is Right.

Oprah As SCOTUS Justice

Any defense of Oprah or other celeb as a nominee to a judicial post is more ridiculous than the original idea.

Oprah as a Supreme Court Justice?

Why would any reasonable person take this notion seriously? Oprah Winfrey is a creation of slick marketing. She is a definition of what capitalism can do if you can capture the imagination of the populace. It can make you rich. This country is driven by personality without substance. We crave people with limited intelligence who cash in. We listen to them as if there was a reason to alter our lives by their words. Celebrity is nothing but good handling. It is not a path to herd hapless people who are looking for something real in their lives.

I think she's BRILLIANT

Oprah's not a product of anyone's marketing but her own. She started her show in Chicago on a shoe string budget with only two girls and a gay guy for a staff and within months she zoomed to the top of the national ratings because she was fresh, original, witty, spontaneous, sincere and honest. Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century because she created confession culture and a brand new form of media communication with her touchy feely confessional style. She's a truly original thinker which I doubt can be said of any current justice on the court. She also popularized the tabloid talk show genre which did more to make gays mainstream than any other development of the 20th century. She's dominated the most competetive and improvisational field there is for a quarter century raking in billions of dollars in the process & becoming the world's most influential woman to boot. I think it takes TONS of intelligence to be a good talk show host. Thinking up all kinds of witty and interesting things to say to amuse people. Knowing what would amuse them. Keeping yourself fresh and spontaneous day after day, week after week, year after year, decade after decade. Most of can't even keep a stranger at a party entertained for more than 2 minutes. Oprah's kept the whole world entertained for more than two decades. I think she's a woman of incredible intellect and substance.

Please not Oprah

Tell you what; Let's start weeding the ridiculously wealthy people OUT of our public institutions. Just because Oprah is a celebrity who is not a total idiot or monster does not mean she deserves a position on the Supreme Court. Why not find some exemplary public defender and give it to him/her?

...but if you need somebody you've seen on the TV, then why not Captain Sully Sullenberger instead, or that Chicago sheriff who decided to refuse to conduct foreclosures last year. People with real jobs and stresses who do courageous and remarkable things.

I know! That mountain climber who had to cut his own arm off with a jack-knife! He'd be great!

Harpo should have a seat.

Oprah would definitely bring strong ideological factors into her work as justice, along with questionable discernment, like the ones with James Frey and some of her various recommendations for women. She would fit in perfectly with the other justices in those respects -- so why not a Justice Harpo? Besides, let's face it, the Supreme Court could stand to lose some of its stodginess by breaking some into the entertainment world. And why shouldn't erstwhile recommendations influenced by Eckhardt Tolle and Dr. Phil be interjected into their decision making process?

Oprah would be great

I thought Oprah handled the whole James Frey thing brilliantly. She dragged him & his publisher on live TV and beat the living daylights out of both of them, forcing him to admit he had lied and forcing his publisher Nan Talese to admit poor fact checking. It was great to see someone in media hold a guest accountable for misleading viewers & it was all the more impressive because she confronted him face to face on live TV. I can't think of anyone else in media who would have had the brains, integrity & courage to hold a dishonest high profile guest accountable with such style & skill. We need a justice who demands honesty, holds people accountable & can verbally obliterate dishonest people in face to face debates. Oprah is an exceptionally high quality person & she is up to the job.

are you serious?

she's an actress and a TV personality. and a HUGE marketing staff that creates this stuff. supreme court justice? america is in trouble with this type of celebrity drooling.

She didn't start out with a huge staff

When her show started in Chicago it had a shoestring budget with a staff consisting only only two girls and a gay guy. It was only after dominating her field and achieving ratings up to four times higher than the competetion that she was generating so much money that she could acquire a large staff. She built a huge empire of money and influence out of nothing. The woman is a brilliant improvisational entertainer, a marketing genius, and an extremely savvy business woman, not to mention a cultural and political king maker who changed the course of history with her endorsement of Obama.

All the qualities we should look for ....

... in a Supreme Court justice.

(snicker)

Oprah would make a fantastic justice

She acts silly on TV, but over the past quarter century she has revealed herself to be a woman of towering intellect & integrity. Also Oprah was the ONLY major media to oppose the war in Iraq before it began. She held a massive TWO DAY anti-war show the day after Colin Powell made his pivotal Feb 2003 UN presentation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7254048331572558471 The show was so controversial there were attempts to take it off the air. She even followed up by letting Michael Moore protest the Iraq war 48 hours before it began. He returned the favour by begging her to run for president. Oprah has repeatedly demonstrated the intelligence, courage & integrity of a good justice. Beyond that Obama owes her for sticking her neck out for him at a time he needed her the most.

Justice Oprah!

I think Oprah would make a spectacular Justice! I'd like to see any civilian (non-lawyer) proposed. Why does a justice HAVE to be a lawyer? In any number of polls asking "What Is The Most Respected Profession? (#1 is usually Pharmacists) Lawyers are generally near the bottom of the list - somewhere just before or after used-car salesmen! Why are there so many "Lawyer" jokes - that EVERYONE laughs at (i.e., the two old saws: Why don't shraks attack lawyers? Answer: Profession courtesy! Or What are 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? Answer: A good start! They interpret the law any way that suits them and and will do ANYTHIG to win! Look at what we're got: horribly biased Scalia and his rubber stamp Thomas and the two newbies (who promised they would no let their personal views sway them and then promptly did!). Oprah is a very smart lady and could get up to speed (with clerks and all) in no time. And she has done so many good things already. Can you see Scalia getting millions to READ? Or even caring if they do? I have worked at a law firm (not, thank heavens as a lawyser) and have seen actions and attitude that would freeze your innards! In closing, I say, Oprah for Justice!!!!!!

whatever

she needs tax deductions...

Good one!

Had me goin' there for a second ....

Don't Be Ridiculous!

With pseudo lawyers Scalia, Alito, "Uncle" Thomas and Roberts already sitting on the bench, we need someone who understands that the interpretation of the law is as important as the law itself. Oprah has been a disappointment too often for consideration, as she runs back to being a corporate media star the moment her ratings dip. She can't establish credibility if personal gain is her priority.

Aghast

Most Americans are far too ignorant of our Constitution and legal precident to become even mediocre Justices.

To that add the ridiculous Federalist Society mindset which now permeates our courts at all levels, and the very thought of putting a non-lawyer on the SCOTUS is inane!

Perhaps her commentary was meant for entertainment, as it certainly can not be taken seriously?

Young as you are,

still you may remember a Winfrey observation from not very long ago: Love is not a feeling, she pronounced, but a behavior. Rubbish, I thought. Love is very much a feeling which may or may not PROMPT a behavior. To think she thought she was being wise.