Along with Kagan, the Supremes attended no PUBLIC universities. None. Undergrad or Law school.

[Captain Hilts]

Here's the list:

No University of Michigan. University of Wisconsin. Not University of Virginia. No Berekley. No University of North Carolina. No UCLA. No University of Texas. NO PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES at all.

John Roberts: Harvard (undergraduate), Harvard (law school)

Antonin Scalia: Georgetown, Harvard

Anthony Kennedy: Stanford, Harvard

Clarence Thomas: Holy Cross, Yale

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Cornell, Columbia (started Harvard)

Stephen Breyer: Stanford, Harvard

Samuel Alito: Princeton, Yale

Sonia Sotomayor: Princeton, Yale

John Paul Stevens: Chicago, Northwestern

Nominee Elena Kagan: Princeton,
Harvard

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8690868.stm

[Hekate]

1. Well, Goodwin Liu at least comes from Stanford (private, but West Coast) and teaches at UC Berkeley

But he doesn't break the streak of Ivy League law schools, as he got his JD from Yale.

He clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsberg, though, and has lots of good liberal cred.

Hekate

[Florida Blue]

6. Is he now on the Court of Appeals ?

I saw him before the Senate Committee as a stalking horse to see how much liberalism the new Supreme could have and thought him amazing. He should be the SC nominee, They should have stopped and renominated him like Shrub did Roberts.

[Hekate]

22. His nomination is "advancing" as of 6 days ago, so he's definitely still viable

He's been passed out of committee on a party-line vote, but has not yet had his Senate vote scheduled. Naturally, there is speculation that this is a stepping-stone to a Supreme Court nomination.

>>>Liu, unlike Kagan and many of President Obama's other judicial nominees, has a long paper trail of liberal positions, including strongly criticizing the Supreme Court nominations of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., and endorsing gay marriage and affirmative action. <<<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR2010051305285.html

The guy looks real good.

I wonder if Ruth Ginsberg is simply waiting to make sure the other appointees are in and solid on the Court before retiring, or if she simply feels like she still has the energy to keep going and will wait until further along in Obama's term.

If we are incredibly lucky, one of the Repub Justices will decide to exit. I read here last week that Roberts actually thinks his salary is too puny -- maybe if one of his corporate pals were to offer him a golden parachute he would go ahead and jump. We can only hope.

Hekate

[Florida Blue]

141. Wackadoos will find a way

To pay him off under the table to keep him there. It is amazing how much money a Supreme's wife can make in the "free market" World.

[Hekate]

157. Ha! You're right about that.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Anyone go to public school at all? nt

[Captain Hilts]

4. Not at university level. nt

[elleng]

3. So?

[Captain Hilts]

5. Our country thinks of itself as a land of equal opportunity when we have the same OxBridge hierarchy

as Britain has.

In my high school graduating class, we had 700 grads, only about 200 went to college and none went to a private college.

[SoxFan]

23. My experience

We had about 200 in our graduating class. Almost everyone went on to college (a few joined the service), but very, very few went to an elite school. For the most part, you saw guys going to UNH, UMass, ULowell, Merrimack, St. Anselm, BC, BU, and Holy Cross. A mix of regional public schools and Catholic liberal arts schools (went to a Catholic high school). I don't remember anyone going to Harvard or Yale.

[CTyankee]

71. I live in New England and have several Ivy and Seven Sisters grads in my family BUT

I think this is a BAD thing! We need more diversity of geography and experience on the Court. I am not happy about this turn of events. We simply must get more good people from public universities from all over the U.S. to represent us in Congress, the White House and on SCOTUS and the lower courts. It is essential to our democracy in my estimation...

[defendandprotect]

74. Think it's also a mistake to have this many lawyers . . .those who wrote the Constitution . . .

weren't lawyers . . .

and there is no reason any appointee to the SC has to be a lawyer!

[Captain Hilts]

81. I attended a very swanky grad school for my phd and have lots of friends who

attended Harvard or Yale and I've also lived in New England, but it's just not representative enough for me.

[CTyankee]

135. Not "representative" enough? Wow, here in New Haven we have a very diverse

population. My neighborhood is mixed racially, agewise, professionally and religiously. We have gay and straight, older couples with no kids and those with young families, Orthodox Jews, Christians of all different churches and atheists. I am a Literacy Volunteer and have Chinese, Korean and Turkish students. We have a good sized refugee community mixed throughout the area, comprised of people from some of the most horrible places on this earth. The diversity is here all around me. I love the fact that I have a rich choice of ethnic restaurants to eat in and wouldn't give that up for anything! When I travel to the midwest for vacation every summer, I find the lack of an ethnic and a racial mix makes for a lot of dullness. I guess you saw a different part of New England...certainly not my experience...

[Captain Hilts]

139. I'm trying to see it as folks not from New England would. If you're from the Midwest...

you see four Manhattanites on the court and all Harvard/Yale types.

It's not really about ethnicity so much.

[CTyankee]

140. Yes, I get that point....and it was my point, too!

Even tho ethnicities on the court vary, the schools are pretty much the same. I do think there should be more people on the court who are from public universities around the country. I can't believe that Harvard and Yale have all the talent...

[Captain Hilts]

148. Keep the faith Nutmeg neighbor....nt

[Florida Blue]

168. You should visit Springfield, Mo

The food diversity there is fantastic. Italian with meat imported from the old neighborhood in South St. Louis, Mexican and Chinese that are resident owners not chains, The best Cuban you can find north of Tampa, and my personal favorite is the British for breakfast of baked beans, English Sausage, Ham, Sweet Potato hash browns, and of course scrambled eggs.

[treestar]

93. One of them might have gone to Harvard

There was just no one, even in that large a population, that happened to be in this top group - another year your school might have had one.

It's not a hierarchy - unless you want to argue middle and upper class people have a better chance at an education. Still in law we don't benefit by uneducated people. It would be a disaster to have average people on the court.

[SoxFan]

7. Diversity includes class

Most Americans who attend college attend public colleges. When our entire national leadership is made up of people who attend schools which are the province of the connected and affluent, then we are in danger of having leaders who do not and can not fully appreciate the experiences of most people.

For years, the Washington chattering class smirked at Joe Biden and questioned his intellect, despite his obvious deep grasp of foreign policy and jurisprudence. I am convinced that a lot of this had to do with the fact that Biden' sheepskins are from the University of Delaware and Syracuse University, one public, the other private but non-elite.

In my own political life I've run into this. The NH Obama campaign (during the primary) was clearly biased in favor of people with Ivy League and quasi-Ivy (Stanford, Georgetown, Amherst, etc) backgrounds. If you went to the University of Arkansas or UMass or UNH, you were lucky to get the time of day from the campaign "leadership".

[bigwillq]

9. Thanks for sharing that last paragraph.

Interesting stuff.

[Captain Hilts]

10. The press has the same bent. Even Norah O'Donnell went to Georgetown. nt

[miscsoc]

12. I'm surprised that you even asked.

It's to do with class, of course. The student body of those few elite schools obviously has a certain very haute bourgeois class composition which obviously has a bearing on any given graduate's ability to "empathize", which as Mr. Obama rightly said is an important qualification for such an important job.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. So?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. None of our burrito supreme justices didn't go to no colleges.

As a unaleetist amercan, I is offended.

[aikoaiko]

13. Those are good schools.

I can't begrudge them their credentials.

[Captain Hilts]

14. UVA, UMich, UTexas and UC Berkeley also are VERY good schools. nt

[aikoaiko]

16. Sure, but the schools of our judges are usually ranked higher than those you mention

And open seats are extremely rare. Its not surprising that the judges come from the top 5 schools as opposed to the 6 - 15th schools.

I'm sure someday there will be someone from public schools.

[SoxFan]

25. "Be a good little boy and maybe you will get a cookie"

What crap.

Why don't we just hand out peerages with Harvard diplomas?

[aikoaiko]

28. Its a statistical thing.

As someone who came from a state school system, I have no problem with our SCOTUS judges coming from the top ranked schools.

[SoxFan]

34. ONLY top ranked schools?

No great mind ever came out of Suffolk, LSU, Texas Tech, or Rutgers?

Let me remind you of who graduated from both Harvard and Yale:

[aikoaiko]

48. I didn't say no great legal minds came from elsewhere or that only great legal mind from the top ...

...schools. And I most certainly didn't say that ALL Harvard or Yale grads were great thinkers. How absurd to ask rhetorical questions like that.

Some of the newest judges came from middle-class backgrounds and earned their places at the top schools. This matters more to me.

Hey, I'm just not surprised that the our SCOTUS judges came from the top schools as opposed to the close to the top schools.

I don't know why anyone would.

[miscsoc]

56. How do you define "top legal mind"?

I'm asking seriously. I can see what a top medical mind would consist in (being good at devising surgical techniques, or developing drugs, etc.) but what's a top legal mind (re: constitutional law, re: the interpretation of a late 18th c. political document)?

[aikoaiko]

64. Law is not my area of expertise, but generally these things are determined by....

peer or professional evaluations of judicial work product. Breadth of knowledge, creativity, good judgment, effectiveness in applying law are some of the things people seems to talk about.

[miscsoc]

66. But in a field like this

My concern is that "Peer or professional evaluations" don't really track what is valuable (for citizens of the republic) in a member of the Supreme Court. I mean I can see why other people working in the field would be impressed by breadth of knowledge and creativity in a lawyer but - if we can suspend Godwin's law for a moment - Carl Schmitt, say, was a very creative and learned lawyer, a genius, but he was clearly a bad one!

Good judgement brings us back to what is meant by "good", and effectiveness is judged by what ends we are aiming for.

[aikoaiko]

67. What do you think is valuable to citizens of the republic?

....That the Supreme Court does not track?

The citizens get their say in SCOTUS judges in who they elect as President and who vote to Congress.

[miscsoc]

162. those professional credentials are not without their value, but

i think some sort of connection with and understanding of the life of the diverse and complex society about the governance of which they are going to have to make hugely important decisions is more important. So a decent supreme court will of course consist of talented lawyers, but within those limitations appointments should be driven by the aim of getting as geographically and socially mixed a court as possible.

I'm not sure that even by the standards you've mentioned the graduates of these few schools are necessarily the "best" in their field, but even if that were the case they would still inevitably tend to lack qualities like an understanding and sympathy for members of society outside their elite-of-the-elite milieu. This will come into play in cases concerning e.g. the rights of private business, I would argue.

I don't think many people voted for Obama on the basis of the particular academic background of the judges he was likely to appoint, although no doubt many did on the basis of the likelihood that he would appoint liberals. He can appoint whoever he likes, I just think he could have acted in a way that was better for your country and taken some issues into heavier account than he apparently has.

[treestar]

People who were smart enough to get into Yale and Harvard

Clerked for judges in the higher courts, or taught or wrote (rather than practicing rent law - pays the rent but does not make you more sophisticated in the law or up on the latest in constitutional law).

[Raineyb]

44. Based on what? Insular groups don't tend to include others which

would be the point you've demonstrated so aptly that you missed.

[aikoaiko]

49. Based on probability.

It will happen someday.

[Raineyb]

52. The probability that a small insular group who only travels in circles with

people who also belong to a small insular group including one of the public university attending "rabble" in their circles is not as probable as you seem to think it is. Perhaps you should bone up on on probability. Law of averages says we should have had someone who went to public university long before now. That we don't is a matter of how the people function not the actual ability.

[aikoaiko]

55. Actually the law of small numbers says maybe not.

We've only sampled a relatively few times from the pool for SCOTUS judges but graduated many many lawyers.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the in-group dynamics that take place of the top ranked schools. Even in my profession there is a bias for valuing certain credentials over others. I'm just not surprised that

[Romulox]

146. There is no objective indicia of the performance of a Justice, so this sort of analysis cannot work.

:eyes:

[aikoaiko]

147. We're not talking about the performance of a SCOTUS justice.

:eyes:

[Romulox]

151. Of course we are (look at the topic title, if you get confused.)

What a silly attempt at deflection.

[aikoaiko]

155. We are talking about where they came from, not their performance as a justice.

[Captain Hilts]

83. BINGO. nt

[treestar]

90. These are the most intelligent people though

They won't be insular. They are capable of grasping what a problem is. for instance, dealing with a Fourth Amendment case. It will often involve a pattern of facts regarding drug dealers and how the cops are expert on recognizing this or that behavior, and whether it is probable cause or not. Street smarts enter in.

A federal judge will handle all kinds of things and in reading the cases, learn about just about everything. the Bill of Rights, Due Process, Equal Protection, Immigration, Securities law, public agency law, civil rights - they will be dealing about disputes over every type of law imaginable. Reading the cases will include the facts of what went on. If there is one way to learn about life, it's to be a judge on an appeals court.

They also have to know the laws of federalism, what is state power and what is federal power. When states can be sued and so forth.

[Captain Hilts]

102. They just ruled corporations are people. Over 70% of the US population disagrees with that. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

128. The most intelligent people?

Would you be referring to Antonin Scalia, who sees nothing wrong with executing an innocent person, as long as the legal formalities were followed?

Or maybe Clarence thomas, who doesn't seem to have ever authored an opinion in his 20+ years on the court and who basically goes the way Scalia goes?

[Raineyb]

130. I have no idea what ignored said. But if the implication is that

these people are so much smarter than the rest of us, a good number of recent decisions would certainly be a good counter to such an assertion.

I know I'm not stupid enough to call property people.

[Art_from_Ark]

166. The poster in question seems to have a rather naive view of the current court

He/she wrote, in part:

"They won't be insular. They are capable of grasping what a problem is. for instance, dealing with a Fourth Amendment case. It will often involve a pattern of facts regarding drug dealers and how the cops are expert on recognizing this or that behavior, and whether it is probable cause or not. Street smarts enter in."

I doubt very much that many of these justices, most of whom have been sheltered for much if not all of their lives, would have a lot of "street smarts"

[Romulox]

145. Law is not a science. The graduates of the "top schools" cannot produce arguments that

those at the "non-elite" (sic) schools cannot.

Try reading some Supreme Court decisions--most of the leading doctrines (e.g. O'Connor's application of the "Undue Burden" standard to abortion) are made up whole-cloth or wildly misapplied. They do not contain some ultra-precise tables of calculations or anything. More along the lines of "We think the Constitution should (or has always!) meant the following, and there are enough of us to prevail on the vote."

Given the above, citing people like Clarence Thomas as "the best" because they went to Yale, for example, is laughable! :hi: :silly:

[aikoaiko]

149. It is laughable to say that Thomas is "the best" but then again no one said that.

[Romulox]

150. Sorry. I thought you knew something about this topic. nt

[aikoaiko]

156. I do. You just don't like what I'm saying.

[miscsoc]

15. Related question: Can anyone describe what exactly being a "good" constitutional lawyer consists in?

In a quasi-democratic republic of the American type?

For this particular role, I think some capacity to represent a significant constituency or worldview within the electorate seems more important than, say, your paper-writing chops as judged by the world of academic constitutional lawyers.

[SoxFan]

43. Unfortunately, there's only one accepted path, it seems

Graduate from an elite undergrad institution, make law review at an Ivy League law school, be a brief bitch for a federal appellate judge, practice corporate law with a meatgrinder firm, write checks to a senator of your choice, get appointed to the federal bench.

Rinse, repeat.

I had a ConLaw professor who was brilliant. Had a deep grasp of the law and the underlying jurisprudential philosophy of past jurists.

Unfortunately, he teaches at the University of Arkansas and graduated from the University of Nebraska.

I guess that means that Clarence Thomas has a better grasp of Constitution.

[Art_from_Ark]

129. Another person who taught law at the University of Arkansas

was Bill Clinton.

[SoxFan]

160. And he made his mark through ELECTED office

Not through appointed office.

[Art_from_Ark]

167. Clinton also had a Yale connection

Not that that mattered much to the average Arkansas voter when he was running for Attorney General and Governor. It might actually have hurt him, though, when he was running for 3rd District representative.

[defendandprotect]

77. Were those who wrote the Constitution .... "good constitutional lawyers" . . .???

[treestar]

84. Someone who has read many cases on it and writes well

And argued cases in it. Which means not the big elite firms or ordinary bread and butter lawyers, but teachers at the best schools, graduates at the best schools, people who write treatises on the law (Law Review) or who work on cases likely to result in constitutional questions, which often means pro bono types of cases - the cases likely to lead to 4th Amendment questions, for example, are going to be criminal cases - where interesting questions arise but the defendants don't have money for Wall Street Lawyers.

Those most likely to be in that path are graduates of Harvard, Yale, etc.

[Kerrytravelers]

17. So?

I went to public K-12, then private after that, by my own choice.

I now work in public education. Am I not qualified for public service because I earned my BA, Credentials and MA from private universities?

:shrug:

[elleng]

27. Glad you added this,

as I suspect most of the Supremes also attended public schools, undergraduate, as do most of us, from where our 'grounding' arises.

[Posteritatis]

38. Clearly you're part of the vile aristocracy!

Or something!

[Kerrytravelers]

58. And you can tell from my enourmous liberal palace... a small apartment.

And the incredible public servant paycheck I draw.

:rofl:

[SoxFan]

39. You have it ass-backwards

Nobody is barring you from anything.

People are, however, barred from serving on the appellate bench because of class bias.

Compare the number of Ivy League and quasi-Ivy grads on the bench with the number of public law school grads. Then compare the number of actual Ivy League grads with the number of public or less prestigious private school (Suffolk, Cardozo, Loyola-NOLA, etc) grads practicing law.

Something is very, very amiss.

[Kerrytravelers]

57. No one is being barred from anything. Nothing is amiss.

We can always find things if we really look and construct a conspiracy theory, but there is hardly a conspiracy. The top law schools in the country produce people who rise to the top. :shrug: The USC film school turns out Academy Award winners every year, without fail. Is there a conspiracy within the film industry, or is that student who graduate from the top film school in the country do well? :shrug:

[SoxFan]

68. Spoken like someone with an elite degree

Which school is it?

Comparing film school to government is borderline moronic. We live in a democracy. When our government is limited to those who have punched their ticket at institutions that are inaccessible to millions of smart and capable people, then we have failed as a nation.

But hey, like I said, let's just establish a peerage system so that those of you who were born on third base can go on feeling all smug and superior to the rest of us.

[Kerrytravelers]

122. So, am I moranic or an elitist?

I went to USC. Not Harvard, but private nonetheless.

I wasn't directly comparing film school to government. I was addressing this conspiracy theory that I find without merit. Calling someone moronic, or even borderline moronic, is really inappropriate.

I seriously think you are demonizing people for making personal choices about where they seek their education.

And why in the world would you think I was born elite? My dad was raised on a farm in rural Kentucky that had no running water or electricity when his last living parent died in 1988. My dad was an enlisted mechanic in the Air Force and then he was a mail carrier. My mom wasn't raised in much more and was a secretary. I'm a teacher. How elitist. I worked my ass off to get accepted into any school I wanted. Nothing was handed to me. I wasn't some sort of legacy admittance. I am the first one in the extended family to get a BA, let alone credentials and a MA. It is quite presumptuous of you to judge my, or anyone's situation, quite frankly, without knowing something more about them. It would be like me judging the intelligence or ability of someone because they chose to go to a public school.

Quite frankly, in regards to the SC, I'm far more concerned about their lifetime views on the law than where they studied before actually practicing the law.

[glitch]

126. Not mutually exclusive.

Nothing personal, just pointing out the fallacy (which really shouldn't be necessary after 8 years of Bush ;)).

[Kerrytravelers]

127. No, not muturally exclusive. But I'd like to think of Bush as an anomaly rather than the rule.

It's really the only way one can sleep at night. :rofl:

[dionysus]

142. you elitist you! silver spoon!1!!! lattes!11!

;)

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. And I went to private 1 thru 12 plus 2 years private higher ed

Finished at public university. Got my masters at public university. Now I teach in a public school.

I think this gives me a good perspective on the state of education. Never thought I may be considered less capable because I wasn't educated 100% in public institutions.

[Captain Hilts]

And I would not say you were more capable for attending public universities. That's not the point.

The point is that this court will be relying on only TWO law schools to interpret our laws.

That's just not right.

[proud2BlibKansan]

99. That's not what you said in your OP

[Captain Hilts]

100. Yes it is. The court needs more academic diversity.

If they had all attended UMich and Berkeley I'd say the same thing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

115. "the Supremes attended no PUBLIC universities."

That's what you said, Dude.

[Captain Hilts]

117. Right. They've all taken the exact same path: private, elite colleges for both undergrad and law.

[Cant trust em]

18. I'm more worried about the bubble kind of attitude that you can get...

by drawing from such a small pot.

There sure is a lot of northeast ivy league on that list.

Not that there is anything wrong with the northeast, or the ivy league. But is there a risk of insulary thinking here?

[SoxFan]

36. It's a huge risk

Someone who worked their way through Suffolk or CUNY while working as a cop or a nurse before entering the bar would bring a valuable perspective to the bench.

[Cant trust em]

42. That's totally what I'm advocating.

:sarcasm:

Seriously though, are there no good schools outside of the ivy league?

[SoxFan]

45. Actually, that IS what I'm advocating

I'd like to see some judges who have lived the life that most people live. Too many judges follow a set path where they are surrounded by other Shiny Happy People from the day they enter college.

There are fantastic legal minds in the making at every law school in the country, public and private. Not every judge should follow the Ivy/clerkship/corporate law pattern.

[Cant trust em]

54. Sorry. I don't know why, but I just got a snarky vibe from your post.

I think that there's a lot of value from coming outside of the traditional ivory tower mode.

There have to be other ways to prove your judicial brilliance than going through those same ol' routes.

[CTyankee]

137. Diversity strengthens society, just as it does in nature.

Diversity is vital to our democracy and to the functioning of our society.

[defendandprotect]

82. And once you stack this many lawyers up, you also select from a pre-selected crowd . . .

isn't that what the SAT's are all about to begin with -- and those for entry

to lawschool even more so -- ? Weeding out IMO --

[treestar]

85. But reading legal cases would make them familiar with everything

A Supreme Court justice will learn about everything under the sun. And we want good legal theory, not just street smarts. In a way an ivory tower is good, in this instance.

[Cant trust em]

94. I think that legal theory is being well covered.

I'm not worried about someone not having the academic background for the job. I think that diverse thinking is needed and it needs to come from a variety of backgrounds, paths to power and geography probably plays a factor too. Aren't there something like 4 New Yorkers on the list?

[Romulox]

152. Have you read many such cases? Not much "slice of life" Americana found therein...

:eyes:

[Hosnon]

158. Reading cases is a very poor way to familiarize one's self with the world.

The number one rule of case law is that large sums of money are usually at stake (i.e., follow the money). Without that, the various legal issues would never come up.

The law, in a practical sense, is nothing more than a war of attrition. Once the cost-benefit analysis weighs in favor of ending the litigation, what the law says either way doesn't matter.

[miscsoc]

19. stupid quote from that article:

"We have a very generous programme of financial aid. People think of Harvard and Yale as being these elite homogenous places but we really have a large and diverse class coming from many different backgrounds and places."

Hahaha no. They have a few token proles and a bunch of loaded foreigners. They are still mostly elite, although perhaps they have a diverse mix of elites. Ordinary Americans of any hue are a pretty marginal element among this beautiful mosaic.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. So you're saying Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor is a token prole?

Or a loaded foreigner?

[miscsoc]

21. Token prole

pretty much

[WeekendWarrior]

24. So?

[SoxFan]

26. I thought we got rid of nobility

Limiting the Court (or any part of government) to graduates of a handful of elite schools that are largely the dwelling places of the wealthy and isolated is not healthy.

It also reeks of Anglophillic classism, where only Oxbridge grads are allowed into the decision making process.

[elleng]

29. I think you'll find that the so-called elite schools are not so, any longer,

and are NOT 'dwelling places of the wealthy and isolated.'

(Daughters are 21 and 25, so I've observed a bit about current college and post-grad education.) AND we in the U.S. are STILL far from the Ox/Bridges etc, fortunately. U.S. 'nobility' arises MUCH MORE from the content of our character than otherwise, imo.

[miscsoc]

31. they are, largely.

they might be marginally less so than they once were but they are hardly egalitarian institutions now, although a lot of people seem emotionally invested in believing that they are.

[SoxFan]

41. Bingo n/t

[SoxFan]

32. Wrong

Try practicing law in New England. If you didn't go to Harvard, Yale, or Cornell, you don't even bother applying to a large number of firms, even if you were law review and moot court superstar.

Same thing in politics. If you went to an elite school, you get to jump to the front of the line. You can work as a corporate lobbbyist, but be forgiven and hailed as the progressive hope because you have the right pedigree.

[elleng]

46. I wasn't talking about practicing law in x,y or z.

I am a lawyer, and know something about THAT 'elitism.' It DOES exist. But in POLITICS? Who knows or cares where Congresscritters or Senators went to college? And lobbyists have to have the right attitudes, credentials notwithstanding.

[Captain Hilts]

109. Same here in DC. A friend of mine who was accepted at Harvard Law decided to go to

Vermont Law and learn environmental law. A friend here in DC was trying to get him an internship here and when they discovered he didn't go to Harvard or Yale, they were not interested.

[Captain Hilts]

106. Not as much as you think. Getting into one of these schools means attending the right

high school, whether it be public or private.

Not a single kid in my high school was able to attend a private college or university. All of my friend's buddies at his high school in Newton, Mass. attended Ivy League or comparable schools.

Yes, there are some kids there on merit, but money is still a huge part of it. A friend of mine went to Yale as an undergrad. His parents were diplomats. And he said he just didn't fit in because he wasn't nearly as wealthy as the other kids were. His dorm mates would all go skiing weekends to...Switzerland. One's grandfather invented a company called 'Timex'. He said he just didn't fit in.

Hell, at my graduate school nearly all the kids in my program came from academic families or those with professional degrees, such as law or medical or phd of some kind. There were three of us - all three of our dads were captains in the navy - 2 USN, 1 RN - and we just didn't fit in and couldn't afford to socialize with the others.

[defendandprotect]

86. Agree with you . . .

[treestar]

87. No way is it nobility!

Nobility it being Lord so and so because you were the son of Lord so and so.

Getting into Harvard has to be done on your own.

I know Bush got into Yale and there are some legacy people. But those schools are known as the best because for the most part, they take the best students! You aren't born that - you have to get the high grades and high test scores to get in.

[SoxFan]

105. Born on 3rd and think you hit a triple

[Captain Hilts]

132. People that go to high achieving high schools are the folks that get into the Ivy League. Usually

Their parents usually also have a professional degree also.

This is one reason it's tough to be the first person in your family to graduate - we're not talking about attending - college. I have friends whose parents told them, "why do you want to do that?"

[Smarmie Doofus]

30. Does any one of the nine have *any* public school background?

Elementary or HS?

My best guess is *maybe* Ginsberg. Sotomayor and Scalia went to NYC catholic schools. The rest strike me as decided prep school types.

I might be *totally* wrong.

[elleng]

51. Mr. Justice Breyer, for one:

Breyer was born to Irving Gerald Breyer and Anne A. Roberts,<2> a middle-class Jewish family in San Francisco, California. Breyer's father was legal counsel for the San Francisco Board of Education.<3> Both Breyer and his younger brother Charles, who is a federal district judge, are Eagle Scouts of San Francisco's Troop 14.<4><5> In 2007, Breyer was honored with the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award by the Boy Scouts of America.<6> In 1955, Breyer graduated from Lowell High School. At Lowell, he was a member of the Lowell Forensic Society and debated regularly in high school debate tournaments, including against future California governor Jerry Brown and future Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe.<7>

Lowell High School, a public magnet school in San Francisco, is the oldest public high school west of the Mississippi in the continental United States. Lowell was ranked 54th by Newsweek's Jay Mathews Challenge Index of best high schools of the United States in 2008<3> and 28th on U.S. News & World Report's Best High Schools in America for 2010.<2> Lowell High School has consistently been ranked the number one "large" high school in California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer


Justice Kennedy

C.K. McClatchy High School is a Sacramento City Unified School District High School. It is located in the Land Park area of Sacramento, California, USA . McClatchy High School is also the second-oldest high school in Sacramento, having been established in 1937. McClatchy High School is home to over forty clubs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._K._McClatchy_High_School

Justice Ginsburg

Born in Brooklyn, a borough of New York City, New York, Ruth Joan Bader was the second daughter of Nathan and Celia (née Amster) Bader. The family nicknamed her "Kiki".<3> They belonged to the East Midwood Jewish Center. At age thirteen, Ruth acted as the "camp rabbi" at a Jewish summer program at Camp Che-Na-Wah in Minerva, New York.<4>

Her mother took an active role in her education, taking her to the library often. Bader attended James Madison High School, whose law program later dedicated a courtroom in her honor.

James Madison High School is a public high school located at 3787 Bedford Avenue, in the Midwood section of Brooklyn, New York, and educates grades 9 through 12. It is part of Region 6 in the New York City Department of Education. The current principal is Joseph Gogliormella.

Built over 75 years ago, James Madison has graduated four Nobel Prize winners, famous musicians, authors, sports players, and a United States Supreme Court Justice.

Following the 2008 election there are two sitting U.S. Senators, Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Charles Schumer (D-NY), who are graduates of James Madison. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is also a graduate, as is former Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison_High_School_(New_York)

[Hippo_Tron]

53. An equally relevant question is whether or not they went to one of those elite boarding schools

There are really two paths into an ivy league undergrad. The first is that you do incredibly well in high school (public or private). The second is that you go to one of those really prestigious boarding shools in the Northeast like Andover or Philips Exiter. If they went to a run of the mill NYC Catholic school then they likely got into the ivy league on their merits, not on their connections. Granted it probably helps if they have parents that can afford to send them there.

[jp11]

33. Well you'd see a public school Supreme court Justice way before you'd see an Atheist President.

[defendandprotect]

89. Also brings to mind religious fanatics on SC -- another category we don't need -- !!

[Retrograde]

159. There have been public school justices in the past

As I pointed out in another post, Earl Warren went to UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall is its law school), and there have been other justices from state schools and small non-Ivy private schools. The new court, if Kagan is confirmed, will be 5 Harvard, 3 Yale and 1 Columbia grad, which is about the most concentrated its ever been. And I won't even bring up the geographic non-diversity.

[Johonny]

35. I didn't go to any public university either

oh noes

[SoxFan]

40. Well, nobody is fucking you over, either

[Johonny]

61. how do you know that

I get fucked over from time to time. Life is not a magic wonderland of mystery just because you went to a private University.

[Wednesdays]

124. That's horrible!

Please tell me about your struggles. I've got time.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

37. Which really ought to put into question the notion of "liberal indoctrination."

I mean, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito? They must have had adjuncts.

[Rex]

47. Have to make sure the right people are in charge, wouldn't want a crazy

public university person coming along and screwing up their elitist court.

[defendandprotect]

92. They represent "the establishment" ---

and the "establishment" is itself, of course, a conspiracy!

And, then, there is W Bush, who reminds us that when you educate a fool

what you end up with is an educated fool.

[ecstatic]

59. Don't waste time worrying. Those who are motivated enough to go to the Supreme Court will get there

somehow (most likely by enrolling at one of those ivy league schools). It's a game--and those who end up at the top know how to play it.

[miscsoc]

62. do you think an obsession with the pursuit of power

is a good qualification for a supreme court justice?

it may well be a game, but it shouldn't, and needn't be.

i think most people could do without judges with that sort of motivation.

it remains an elitist game because the political class, including the president, continue to connive in making it so

[ecstatic]

65. Actually yes... If a person isn't obsessed, they most likely wouldn't

be interested in such a job. It kind of goes hand in hand.

[MellowDem]

88. Not at all...

I think there are many people out there who are interested in such a job but are not "obsessed". Obsession isn't necessarily healthy. And ambition isn't necessarily a positive trait. Why people consider them to be so is kind of beyond me.

[treestar]

95. But then who should be on the court?

It has to be people obsessed with the law. That will tend to look like ambition to be at the top. But it has to be people who live and breathe the law.

[defendandprotect]

96. Why . . . ???? It's not necessary to be a lawyer to be on Supreme Court -- !!

[tammywammy]

104. Considering their job is to interpret the law as to its constitutionality

while it's not necessary to be a lawyer every Supreme Court justice has been a lawyer.

[defendandprotect]

110. Those who wrote the Constitution weren't lawyers . . . why would you need to be one ...

to interpret it?

You understand it, don't you --

The Supreme Court is an expediency . . . and, sadly, political!

It's a measure to keep control in hands of the elite --

Just as Senate is --

[tammywammy]

112. Well every President and Congress disagrees with you

Every Supreme Court justice has been a lawyer. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

114. But you do recognize there is no stipulation that you must be a lawyer ... right?

Do you get that point?

:shrug: :shrug:

[tammywammy]

118. Um, yes, I believe that was covered in my first reply.

"while it's not necessary to be a lawyer every Supreme Court justice has been a lawyer."

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

119. Therefore, we might try for more diversity . . . if you can write a Constitution WITHOUT

being a lawyer, I'd say chances are you can interpret it without being a lawyer --

and most Americans who have read it, I think feel they do understand it!

Again -- it's a political body -- elitist and intended to stay that way.

[MellowDem]

123. Lots of people live and breathe the law...

but the question for the Court is do they also strive to place themsleves in a position to get on the Court?

Here is what it comes down to with getting on the Supreme Court. You have to have enough of a background to avoid there being a debate over qualifications, you have to represent a traditionally underrepresented or electorally important group (your usual identity politics), and you have to fit the ideological strain that the current President wants to put on the Court, which is not non-partisan. Those last two are more luck than anything else. The idea is that the name Harvard, Yale, etc. carries with it authority and "qualified", because that's the status quo, not that those are the only places that qualified Surpeme Court nominees come from.

As we all know, there are some real stupid motherfuckers on the Supreme Court from Harvard and Yale who currently (and have in the past) made incredibly horrible decisions.

[Captain Hilts]

133. It's almost as if it's determined by the age of 27 whether or not you'll get on the court. nt

[charlesg]

60. It is the birthright of Ivy Leaguers to rule us all

We must bow to their infinitely superior intellect and obey them.

[SoxFan]

69. Can we make them Lords and Ladies of the Realm upon graduation?

[proteus_lives]

125. If they all went to public universities....

Would you be bitching because none of them went to Ivy Tech?

[treestar]

91. They don't rule us. The judiciary is one third of federal powers.

They interpret the law, that is all.

[Captain Hilts]

134. Folks weren't saying that in 2000. nt

[MadHound]

63. Elitism, pure and simple

Despite the fact that there are many, many people better qualified to sit on the SC, one of the filtering mechanisms is the schools that were attended. Sadly, the Ivy League has gotten the rep of producing the most intelligent, best educated graduates, when in reality what they produce, for the most part, are the most wealthy, elite and well connected graduates.

[SoxFan]

70. "SHUT UP! TEABAGGER! ANTI-INTELLECTUAL!"

Yadda Etcetera

[Captain Hilts]

131. That's not a fair assessment of the folks that go to these schools. nt

[defendandprotect]

72. We need humanists on the court . . .

meanwhile, most of our colleges and universities are being corporatized and

militarized --

Sad affair --

Population increases also suggest we could double the court --

[tammywammy]

73. I go to a private university.

:shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

79. So? There's certainly nothing wrong with that. But the court needs some diversity. nt

[ruggerson]

75. What the hell is wrong with Ivy League schools?

are we now adopting the rightwing meme of denigrating "elitist" Eastern universities?

[tammywammy]

76. Apparently so.

I bet they eat arugula too.

[JerseygirlCT]

78. Sounds a bit like that nt

[Captain Hilts]

80. No one said there is anything wrong with Ivy League schools, or folks who attend them. I have

a lot of friends who attended them and attended a pretty swanky graduate school myself.

But it's not at all representative for the court to rely on only two law schools.

[defendandprotect]

97. If they were free -- open simply to the best students in the nation -- nothing!!

However, even more than ever now, education and that piece of paper is reverting

to be the sole property of elites.

Those average people who were able some time ago to send their children to elite

schools based on marks, scholarships, and manageable costs, have certainly been

pushed out in the last 15 years or so. Elites don't want competitition from average

folk -- even at state and city colleges -- they're shutting them off there, as well.

Only the elites -- as it used to be -- want to be the possessors of that piece of paper!

There was a time when those who went to school at night -- those who worked and educated

themselves -- those poor and middle class kids who managed to get higher educations were

prized for their initative and hard work. Today, someone like that is considered less.

[Captain Hilts]

98. I wonder if these folks would be okay if all our presidents went to the Naval Academy or West Point.

Great schools that have produced some terrific folks - I know many - but do we want the White House dominated by just that demographic?

[defendandprotect]

103. Well, again, that's a select group . . . formerly didn't even include females!

PLUS it's miliaristic -- why would we want that for our Supreme Court --

or Presidency?

Wasn't Rumsfeld and his militaristic and Christian insanities enough?

And he didn't even go to a military academy!!

Meanwhile . . . times change . . .

this is the most brutal and cruel military we've ever raised --

we're involved with the concept of perpetual wars again ...

we've aggressively invaded other nations for no reason -- no attack upon us by

a government.

Let's stop preparing for war -- let's prepare for peace -- peace is harder than war!

:)

[Captain Hilts]

You and I might feel that way, but a lot of folks would be comfortable with it. Diversity is good.

[defendandprotect]

116. Sadly true -- probably a lot of right wingers were happy with the insane Rumsfeld--!!

Agree -- diversity is good!!

:)

[Captain Hilts]

121. Rumsfeld went to Princeton!

[defendandprotect]

143. Evidently, he also went thru some crazy Christian Fundi brainwashing . . .?

Or -- simply used it as an alibi for his warmongering/warmaking?!!

[Captain Hilts]

111. The absence of academic diversity is the problem. nt

[Romulox]

153. They turn out students with reading comprehension problems? Nobody said anything like that. nt

[Sgent]

101. Ivy league schools, MIT, and prob Stanford

no longer have tuition for undergrads unless you make 200K+, and financial aid isn't decided until after your admission is decided.

The law schools do have tuition, but loans to go to Harvard/Yale Law School are kind of like money in the bank.

[defendandprotect]

107. Interesting . . . didn't know that . . . of course, Stanford, California which all used to be free?

Again -- you don't have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court --

And . . . what I see of our colleges and universities is that they're being

corporatized -- and militarized. Certainly MIT?????

:)

[Retrograde]

120. Stanford's never been free

You may be confusing it with the University of California, which used to be tuition-free. But Stanford's always charged - even early grad Herbert Hoover worked summers to pay his fees.

I did find at least one Supreme Court judge who went to a state school for his law degree, the University of California's Boalt Hall: Earl Warren. (His predecessor, Fred Vinson, doesn't seem to have attended law school). There've been some who were undergrads at state schools, or got their law degrees from non-Ivy League schools (Thurgood Marshall, for one), and while the court's been dominated by northeastern grads it doesn't appear to have been this top heavy with them until recently.

What's worse, 4 of the current justices are from New York City.

[defendandprotect]

144. My apologies for that error -- I thought at one time ALL California education was free . .

pre-Reagan, that is -- !!

Warren . . . liberal court . . . positive decisions.

Fred Vinson received his law degree from Centre College -- not that I knew that!

Also from a prominent political family -- and doesn't look like a nice guy at all!!

Big role in Rosenberg decision to execute, for one!



http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/vinson.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_M._Vinson



IMO, the woman who should have been on the SC was Barbara Jordan --

Elizabeth Holtzman wouldn't be bad either!!

Loved Thurgood Marshall -- and as he was retiring and journalists were asking him if

he thought Poppy Bush would honor the opening as a "black" seat, he cautioned:--

"It's not the color of a snake which is important. It's whether or not the snake bites!"



But -- Hey . . . I'm a native New Yorker -- and if I were on the Court you can bet it would

be a good thing!

:)

:evilgrin:

:nuke:

[Captain Hilts]

108. Getting in - the right high school - the SAT prep courses, the AP classes, the summer language

programs - cost money. It costs money to get the right kind of high school education.

Were all of us at my high school stupid because none of us were able to go to a private university or college? Are all the kids in my friend's hometown school of Newton Mass. smarter because they all went to private colleges and universities?

[defendandprotect]

113. SAT's weed out . . . humanists, IMO . . . and increasingly costs of education

have arisen to return us to a situation where that piece of paper remains the

sole property of elites.

Note that they would be quite willing -- and have tried -- to overturn affirmative

action -- and needless to say, Clarence Thomas, was a beneficiary of that legislation.

Women have been reaching a point where -- based on marks/performance -- their numbers

are higher than males.

Haven't seen anything recent on that so presume they're still rising.

How many African Americans in our prisons while corporate criminals go free --

[Romulox]

154. Do they still have LEGACY admissions? It would seem then that that's a lot of subsidized rich kids!

George Bush = FREE TUITION

[Captain Hilts]

161. I read in the WSJ, I believe that children of alumni have lower SAT scores than others, which

suggests there are, at least, slightly different standards for the children of alumni. I assume that would cover donors as well.

[miscsoc]

164. Those provisions for poor students

Don't actually seem to have made the student body of the Ivy League etc. remotely representative. They are still largely drawn from the richest part of society. They are a start but they don't get rid of the problem; the only way you can believe that the status quo is fair is if you really believe that the rich are, with a few exceptions, generally vastly more intelligent than the rest of us.

[smalll]

136. Again, so what? Deserving young geniuses can get grants to attend the Ivy League --

I've seen previously here a (laughable) desire that a Supreme Court Justice graduate from a STATE school --

that poster, AND YOU -- are skirting dangerously close to Hruskaism:

"So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."

[miscsoc]

165. do you think the supreme court has any geniuses on it?

which ones?

Anyway, the claim that "Deserving young geniuses can get grants to attend the Ivy League" is absurd. Do you believe that "deserving young geniuses can earn their way to millions"? Maybe you should join the GOP

The people who get these sort of grants aren't stupid, but they're also lucky in a number of ways.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

138. Some of the brightest legal minds I've ever met were

... paralegals!

Look, I went to a public university for my BS and BA, to a local community college for my 2-year paralegal degree, and to a private elite would-be-Ivy-if-it-were-in-the-Northeast-but-instead-it's-in-crappy-Durham-NC-so-it's-not-Ivy university which normally ranks in the top 10 universities in the U.S. and I've had the pleasure/displeasure to interact with many Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Vassar and other elite college students. I must say that there were rather average intellects at the elite institutions, some of whom were there simply because of family connections and/or wealth, whereas some of the hardest working and most intellectually stimulated minds I found at the community college level and somewhat at the large state institution located in Raleigh, NC.

These were people who actually worked one or two or more jobs, who had family and other responsibilities, and yet made it their lives' purposes to get an education and were actually interested in intellectual pursuits besides binge drinking and pot smoking which I found elsewhere.

In other words, one can find qualified legal minds in a variety of areas. I think it's a mistake to assume that only graduates from certain schools are qualified. I've worked with lawyers with Harvard/Yale/Columbia pedigrees as well as lawyers from other lower tier law schools. I've also worked with a lawyer who graduated with an online law degree from a California school (not ABA accredited) and passed the California baby bar and bar on her first tries.

She is one of the most brilliant legal minds not just because she knows the law, but also because she worked for a while before getting her degree and has an actual understanding of how the real world works. One thing I noted about Ivy degree holders is their lack of understanding (for the most part - there are exceptions) of how the real world works, that it's not a fraternity or a sorority of like-minded and like-moneyed people who look, think, speak and act just like you do.

[miscsoc]

163. round of applause

but even on du a lot of people are devoted to the idea that the exclusive representation of a few "elite" schools on the u.s. supreme court MUST be due to the objective superiority of those judges as judges; good luck trying to disabuse them of this idea with facts and stuff