The Corner

Law & the Courts

‘Studies Show’ Nothing about SCOTUS Diversity

Chief Justice John Roberts (seated, center) leads Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (front row, left to right), Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Elena Kagan (back row, left to right), Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch in taking a new family photo including Gorsuch, their most recent addition, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., June 1, 2017. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

A recent headline in the Washington Post “Speaking of Science” section reads: “Every current Supreme Court justice attended Harvard or Yale. That’s a problem, say decision-making experts.” The author cites numerous studies that show that “groups with vastly diverse members are smarter, more creative, make fewer errors and show increased problem-solving abilities.”

The argument goes in every direction and gets nowhere. We are informed that a certain McKinsey study found that public companies with high ethnic and racial diversity among their managers were more likely to garner above-average returns. A few lines earlier we were reminded that “the current justices are far more diverse in gender and race than past decades.”

Then we notice that the studies in question deal with financial markets, biotechnology, IT consulting, sports teams, and trial juries, all of which have less than nothing to do with the Supreme Court. The assertion “diverse groups make better decisions” requires us to understand what “better” means.

As regards the Supreme Court, it means ruling correctly on questions of constitutional law. There is an important difference between this and the previous examples that is entirely lost in the Post’s analysis, namely that the Supreme Court does not reason scientifically.

In all the fields examined by these studies, a good decision is one ratified by good empirical results. The actors are approaching a problem with many variables, weighing their impacts, and devising the solution that best accounts for them. This process demands the most ingenious thinking possible, so assembling a group of people who all think differently is the best way to ensure that all possible hypotheses are considered. Once they choose a hypothesis, they put it into practice and see whether it works. If it doesn’t, they ditch it and try something else. Having the diversity of viewpoint is a way of reaching the best hypothesis the fastest.

That is roughly the scientific method. The Supreme Court, however, does nothing like this, or at least it shouldn’t. It is not trying to devise a solution to a practical problem with many variables. Its task is to determine whether a law or action is permitted by the Constitution. This is a deductive procedure that works by principles.

Whether a law is constitutional is not affected by its social effects or its expediency or its political desirability. A Supreme Court decision is not a hypothesis about how best to run the United States. The criterion for selecting justices, therefore, is legal perspicacity, not innovative genius.

What benefit accrues to the country from a Supreme Court justice who, to borrow the Post’s example, has practiced law in Montana? A justice is not making the law; he’s applying the federal Constitution, which is uniform everywhere, to specific cases, the facts of which he will study individually. The sole advantage of having a Montana lawyer on the Court would be an intimate knowledge of Montana law, which would be useful only in cases pertaining to Montana and could be acquired with a little effort by anybody else.

The late, great Justice Scalia explained this in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges. “The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval,” he wrote, “would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage.” He was condemning the Court’s activism in that case, but he also showed that people who demand diversity in the justices misunderstand the Court’s function.

SCOTUS isn’t Bridgewater. We don’t need “innovative solutions” to conflicts. We need to adhere to the Constitution, and if the best candidate is another Yalie, let’s get him on the bench.

Liam Warner — Liam Warner is an editorial intern at National Review.

Most Popular


Trump’s Disgraceful Press Conference in Helsinki

On Monday, President Trump gave a deeply disgraceful press conference with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. The presser began with Trump announcing that although the Russia–U.S. relationship has “never been worse than it is now,” all of that “changed as of about four hours ago.” It was downhill from ... Read More

Questions for Al Franken

1)Al, as you were posting on social media a list of proposed questions for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, did it occur to you that your opinion on the matter is no more relevant than Harvey Weinstein’s? 2) Al, is it appropriate for a disgraced former U.S. senator to use the Twitter cognomen “U.S. ... Read More

Democrats Are Dumping Moderates

The activist base of the Democratic party is lurching left fast enough that everyone should pay attention. Activists matter because their turnout in low-turnout primaries and caucuses almost propelled leftist Bernie Sanders to victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Last month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated New ... Read More
National Security & Defense

Trump’s Helsinki Discord

Donald Trump is not, and never will be, the Moscow correspondent for The Nation magazine, and he shouldn’t sound like it. The left-wing publication is prone to extend sympathetic understanding to adversaries of the United States and find some reason, any reason, to blame ourselves for their external ... Read More