Sub-preme Court-ing: an Exercise in Ignorance

Given the intense and exhaustive (and exhausting) scrutiny Supreme Court justices receive before and during their confirmation hearings, I always want to believe that the country is fortunately getting individuals who regardless of political bent are some pretty high caliber intellects, at least in the legal arena. And while I don’t always think they have rendered the best decision on those cases that I pay any attention to, I usually feel they have made reasonable, rational and realistic judgments and decisions of those cases.

So I am just a tad anxious about the media’s reports on and political/policy wonks’ interpretations of statements made by various justices in the oral arguments presented in the Wal-Mart sex-discrimination class-action case. The quoted questions asked and comments made in response to answers would indicate that the justices are in the deep-end of the pool on this case. I think they are apparently over their heads because to apply their vast knowledge and insight into the law and the applicable Constitutional areas that would inform their deliberation and decision, the justices must also be competently conversant in and comprehending of the science and mathematics that would provide a critical aspect of the case and for serving as a basis for reaching an informed decision.

This case may rely more critically upon an understanding of the scientific analysis of the situation than directly upon the applicable law or the Constitution. And from the questions, it may be that in this case that the justices are ill-equipped to appreciate their own deficiencies. That the plaintiffs’ and the defendant’s legal teams may be equally in the dark or in even darker regions of the intellectual universe, doesn’t provide the justices with guides who can navigate the justices through the esoteric jungle that they must traverse. The competency with which the justices are able to understand the context of the case is just as important to the specific issue that the Supreme Court is focused on at this time, which is whether it is reasonable for a class-action case of over a million women to justifiably be applied in a discrimination claim.

This case may well become a case-study for future legal studies in how an abundance of understand and skill in the law proves impotent and ineffective in understanding and resolving the dispute which rests first and foremost on data, its interpretation and its comprehension. Oddly, both legal teams will probably use data and an interpretation of it; but they are unlikely to comprehend it or to recognize their short-fall of understanding. In the end, the justices will retire to adjudicate the case based on their individual understands and biases, and upon the information presented whether meaningful or not. And from this murky and infrequently visited domain of scientific understanding, the justices will render their decision. Based on that decision, the country will follow a legal precedence that will direct the path that individual freedoms with respect to corporate power will have travel for years to come.

We cannot expect the justices to be perfect in each and every case; not the least because that would be impossible given the large groups of people who support one side or the other of the opposing positions in the cases themselves. But can we as citizens feel comfortable that American justice is becoming increasingly vulnerable to decisions that are made by a Supreme Court that is second to none in their expertise in jurisprudence, but who may be excessively ignorant about the true facts of the case that they judge?

I don’t know if there is a way to avoid this inherent vulnerability; but I think we should seek a way to provide a modern day ‘checks and balances’ solution to these situations. I am not proposing a diminishing of the power or authority of the Supreme Court, but rather that it might be prudent for the Supreme Court to have access to advisory resources that are responsible for independent and impartial analysis and interpretation of technical, scientific and analytic information presented in cases brought before them.

The best chance for justice depends upon both knowing the facts and on understanding them. Without either, no decision can be depended upon to serve the interests of the nation nor to protect our freedoms.