The Supreme Court is not final because they it is infallible; it is infallible only because it is final.
The latest GOP talking point is that Sotomayor isn’t a good judge because of her reversal rate by the Supreme Court. As it turns out, like most Republican talking points, this one isn’t true, either, but more to the point, a high reversal rate is practically a badge of honor, given the current Court’s makeup.
In any event, the subtext underlying the argument is pernicious. On disputed points of law, smart and well-intentioned people can disagree, and the fact that one side wins with the Supremes says absolutely nothing about their intellectual credentials. The 9th Circuit is overturned more than any other, but this is because the 9th Circuit has more liberal judges than any other (although Stephen Reinhardt, I must admit, does seem to relish saying things that he knows will be slapped down by the high court).
Justice Robert Jackson said it best:
We are not final because we are infallible; we are infallible only because we are final.
Author: Jonathan Zasloff
Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic - Land Use, the Environment and Local Government. He grew up and still lives in the San Fernando Valley, about which he remains immensely proud (to the mystification of his friends and colleagues). After graduating from Yale Law School, and while clerking for a federal appeals court judge in Boston, he decided to return to Los Angeles shortly after the January 1994 Northridge earthquake, reasoning that he would gladly risk tremors in order to avoid the average New England wind chill temperature of negative 55 degrees.
Professor Zasloff has a keen interest in world politics; he holds a PhD in the history of American foreign policy from Harvard and an M.Phil. in International Relations from Cambridge University. Much of his recent work concerns the influence of lawyers and legalism in US external relations, and has published articles on these subjects in the New York University Law Review and the Yale Law Journal. More generally, his recent interests focus on the response of public institutions to social problems, and the role of ideology in framing policy responses.
Professor Zasloff has long been active in state and local politics and policy. He recently co-authored an article discussing the relationship of Proposition 13 (California's landmark tax limitation initiative) and school finance reform, and served for several years as a senior policy advisor to the Speaker of California Assembly. His practice background reflects these interests: for two years, he represented welfare recipients attempting to obtain child care benefits and microbusinesses in low income areas. He then practiced for two more years at one of Los Angeles' leading public interest environmental and land use firms, challenging poorly planned development and working to expand the network of the city's urban park system. He currently serves as a member of the boards of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (a state agency charged with purchasing and protecting open space), the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice (the leading legal service firm for low-income clients in east Los Angeles), and Friends of Israel's Environment. Professor Zasloff's other major activity consists in explaining the Triangle Offense to his very patient wife, Kathy.
View all posts by Jonathan Zasloff