I saw here that Antonin Scalia is bummed that the Supreme Court has no Protestants, evangelical or otherwise, thus violating the fundamental principle of “no social transformation without representation.”
Scalia’s point is interesting, although I don’t quite know what to do with it. Scalia also points out another dimension of the court’s unrepresentativeness — that all nine of its members are successful lawyers. Personally, I’d be cool with including a few non-lawyers on the court, but I wouldn’t go so far as to seek out unsuccessful people. From a constitutional perspective, I’d think the “representation” issue would be more relevant when applied to the House of Representatives, but of course that group underrepresents poor people and other marginal members of society.
Read Full Article »