Brother Hugh’s observation about the Supremes as a priestly sect does resonate with me a bit. I tried reconciling that to the fact that I’d much rather have a Bork than a Miers on the bench, and the best I can come up with right now is the difference between “should be” and “is”.

The “should be” part of me would be happy with an ordinary men of ordinary intelligence who simply had the guts and honesty to look at each case and ask what the Constitution has to say about that and, if the Constitution is silent, to send it back to the legislatures to get hammered out. I can’t argue that knowing 18th century history is a plus, but I also don’t hold that the Constitution was meant to be a brain buster. A little honest reading of English quickly demystifies most questions, and learning a little about the language as spoken by the Founders only makes it clearer.

The “is” part has to recognize that the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds so far and so long that it is, in effect, a ruling priesthood.

So, as a practical matter, I have to agree with you. But in principle I don’t think it should take a High Priest to correctly execute the office.

Comments

Enough rambling. What I’m *really* miffed about is that Hugh is in Florence and I’m not. I love that place.