The Judiciary's Class War (Encounter Broadsides, 54)

Reynolds brings to light certain important facts about the Federal judiciary's class biases, which once pointed out are obvious. A valuable little book.

In this new Encounter Broadside, Glenn Harlan Reynolds (aka Instapundit) argues that “Front-Row Kids” have taken over the federal judiciary, rendering decisions that both reflect and reinforce the prejudices of their social class.As Reynolds describes them, Front-Row Kids—the term is Chris Arnade’s—are the people “who did well in school, moved into managerial or financial or political jobs, and see themselves as the natural rulers of their fellow citizens.” By contrast, “Back-Row Kids” “placed less emphasis on school” and not surprisingly “resent the pretensions, and bossiness, of the Front-Row kids. Back-Row Kids are more plentiful, but Front-Row Kids are more powerful, as they’re the ones who for the most part lead America’s institutions, both private and public.The Judiciary’s Class War is a short essay, so Reynold merely sketches the outline of an argument that needs to be made more fully elsewhere. Still, it is a suggestive argument. Given that, for example, all nine Supreme Court Justices hail from only three law schools—Harvard, Yale, and Columbia—perhaps it’s time that the court look a little more like America. Isn’t that what diversity is all about, after all?

Reynolds “pamphlet” argues that Supreme Court justices are culturally homogenous, assuming there is one “beltway liberal” (my term, not his) culture and one “traditional American values” culture. One of the pamphlet’s best points may be that the Supreme Court has become the ultimate arbiter of *moral*—as opposed to, or perhaps dressed up as, *legal*—Issues and this role demands broader representation than by nine Harvard/Yale educated beltway lawyers. My only quibble is that I would have preferred the idea to have been a little more fleshed out, especially with the potential solutions; for example Reynolds recently wrote an op-ed arguing for expanding the number of justices that could have been included here. Also, if, as Reynolds argues, non-lawyers should be included on the Court, should we consider adding those who actually specialize in morality, such as pastors and philosophers? All that said, count me ‘in favor’ of these shorter, pithier formats. No need to add a bunch of filler just to make a good idea “book length.” Recommended.

Eminently reasonable, brilliant as always, Prof Reynolds insight as a widely published and highly respected constitutional law professor and scholar, plus his long experience as an influential commentator on the culture makes this yet another must read and early warning of trends ahead.

I liked the book, but it left me wanting more information. If someone was not more familiar with some of those cases, they might not have been able to understand the opinions and conclusions of the author. The view of the supreme court as a separate class is an important part of understanding how things work.

I've always enjoyed historical criticism of the Supreme court, especially since reading "Scalia Dissents. 'Reynolds makes that historical criticism briefly with a nod to the obvious divide between our elite betters (the front row) and the rest of the country that could not attend an IV league law school (the back row) education.Though I prefer Codevilla's formulation of the problem in his category-10-earthquake book, Reynold's argument is not weekend for failure to include Codevilla's observations.

This is a must read. Reynolds holds that the judiciary is composed of "front row kids". These are the studious kids from middle-upper class families who have gone to the best schools and then on to the best law schools. While a "back row kid", one who may not have even gone to college, can advance in politics, they have no chance at being in the judiciary.

Reynolds makes a number of intriguing suggestions about how to make the federal judiciary look more like America, and more in touch with the average citizen. It's well worth considering, especially in light of the populist revolt that's been going on in America and Great Britain. One of Reynolds' suggestions--appointing non lawyers as judges--could change the direction of constitutional law for the better.