"See You in Court" Quote of the Day (3)

On the shockingly anti-democratic pedigree of some of our most prominent jurists:

The problem (or the crisis) is this: the kinds of judges who get into office, especially on the right, owe their appointments directly or indirectly to the fact that relatively fewer people vote or participate.... It's in the interest of judges on the right that not more but fewer people vote. And not just not vote, but not participate, not go to school, literally and figuratively, to get the skills of citizens.

For example, as a young lawyer, [John] Roberts made his mark arguing that the states can keep children of undocumented parents out of the public schools. Fortunately, in Plyer v. Doe, his side lost. But Roberts seems to have been a true believer; it helped get him backing on the right. What can be better for the republic than to keep the poor out of schools? As a young lawyer, Alito was even worse. Long after most lawyers had stopped, he was still arguing agaist [Reynolds v. Sims (1962)] and one person, one vote, even when there was no hope of going back. Yet Roberts and Alito are almost moderates compared to what Thomas and Scalia would do.

Many law professors seem to find the activism of the far right to be quirky, with no pattern or principle to what they do. It's not states' rights; it's not anything. Yes, it is erratic, and I love to make this same point. But in darker moments, I feel certain that there is a connecting thread: less participation. Put another way, it is not only that the Court, like Congress or the president, is less accoutable to the people. Rather, the right-wing justices on it actually want to make the Court, and government generally, less accountable to the people.

Book salon on Sunday, 5:00 EST here [1]. Buy the book here [2]. It just might change the way you see America forever.