The Supreme Court

Lady Justice is the archetype that illustrates the Judicial Process for this country. She uses 3 tools in meting out Justice for all - the blindfold, the sword, and the scales. These tools are provided by the government (of the people), and thus their effectiveness is dependent on people.

The Ideal

The blindfold is a tool provided by the Judicial Branch of government. It represents equal treatment under the law - no matter who you are. It is implemented in the rules that have been adopted by that branch regarding judges' conduct. Judges swear under oath to be unbiased - following the rules set by the government.

The sword is a tool provided by the Legislative Branch of government. It represents penalties for breaking the law. It is implemented in the laws that the Legislative Branch adopt. These laws provide for punishment guidelines that judges use to mete out justice.

The scales is a tool provided by the Executive Branch of government. It represents fairness - where evidence will be weighed both for and against. It is implemented through choosing judges that express this fairness quality.

The Practice

People always look for an "advantage" - which means a way to bias results in their favor. Each of the tools of justice can be subverted in some way to bring about this favorable result. The blindfold is subverted when judges are not held to account for their actions - or are lightly punished when more stringent action is called for. The sword is subverted when Legislators take discretion out of the hands of judges - such as creating mandatory sentencing. The scales are subverted when the Executive Branch chooses judges with (favorable) biases.

The Supreme Court

There are two schools of thought (bias) among justices on the Supreme Court. Justices are either Conservative or Liberal and tend to vote together in their own group. This happens so often that someone that doesn't fall into this pattern is known as a "swing" vote - and that is historically rare.

The Supreme Court chooses cases that showcase a gap in the law - i.e. where the application of law is unclear. It is up to the Supremes to figure out how to bridge that gap. These gaps are all new i.e. they have never (directly) been addressed before. So every case is different - like a mystery to be solved.

What I don't understand about the Supreme Court is this: If every case is a brand new mystery - how come the same justices vote in the same way? That sure doesn't sound to me like the Lady Justice Ideal. A jurist that followed that ideal would look like a "swing" voter - since every case would be different and based on its own merits. You should not be able to predict any vote ahead of time.

In fact, you could replace the entire court with a mathematical algorithm.

1. Figure out Liberal and Conservative positions (not difficult).
2. Determine which jurists are of each type (also not difficult).
3. Apply votes from each jurist based on their inclination.

This would predict outcomes probably 90% of the time.

Notice that deliberation doesn't appear above. What I notice is that deliberation doesn't exist in the court today. Minds are made up very early in the process and it's a sham to pretend that they did their duty as judges. I find that disgusting and sickening.

How to Balance?

Lady Justice is blind, but the president is not. Is is his duty to balance the court - not to install a certain ideology. Since Supreme Court Justices serve for a lifetime, and life spans are getting longer - part of balancing the court means not nominating young justices that would serve for many decades. Wisdom is the prime requisite for a justice, and wisdom does come from age - so judges shouldn't be too young. Just what that cutoff age is depends on the individual, but 60 would be a good number.

If I were the president, I would look for 60 year olds that are independent thinkers - people willing to break with the status quo if need be - but tempered by wisdom. There must be at least 9 of them in the country . . .