The Judiciary's Class War

This Glenn Reynolds' pamphlet posits that the US is divided into two classes: Front Row Kids and Back Row Kids.  The Front Row kids are "mobile, global, and well educated."  Back Row kids are more religious, not as well educated, and usually live near where they were born.  Those who become judges are almost exclusively Front Row kids and are likely to rule with a Front Row kid bias.  He lists a variety of rulings over the decades that have favored Front Row attitudes over Back Row views.  He holds that this is a problem.

 

The Front Row kid bias is a fairly new phenomenon.  Justices were once drawn from a variety of sources but now are almost exclusively graduates of Harvard or Yale (Ruth Bader Ginsburg attended Harvard but graduated from Columbia).  Hmm, this reminds me of blogs I've written about the Presidency and the Senate.  There is entirely too much elitism in the government today.  To resolve this problem, Reynolds holds that a wider net should be cast for potential nominees, not just the Ivy Leaguers.  Also, the justices should be made to ride the circuit again.  At one time, justices would serve on circuit courts between sessions; this would give them a better sense of the rest of the country rather than just the echo chamber of the East Coast Corridor.  Another thought is to make the judges an elective office, which would require an amendment.  He offers a pair of rulings that would have resulted in a very effective attack ad in an election.

 

It is a short read and available on Amazon.  Recommended.

 

Elites of the Senate

The United States Senate, which was initially formed to represent the interests of the States, was undermined by the 17th Amendment.  Rather than being selected by the state assembly and/or the governor, the senators would be popularly elected.  This effectively ended the ability of state governments to directly influence the federal government.  Whereas the state legislature could have recalled a senator who voted in favor of a law that would impose costs on the state government (e.g. Medicaid, Americans with Disabilities Act, No Child Left Behind, etc.), the 17th Amendment removed that check from the state.  Unfunded mandates have proliferated, allowing the federal government to determine how the states must spend their tax revenues.

 

The reasoning behind the amendment was that too many millionaires were 'buying' senate seats.  There was also an issue with legislatures selecting senators in a timely fashion since it wasn't an election with a given day for all legislators to vote.  Popular vote certainly resolved the second of those issues but senators are still among the wealthy elite.

 

Members of the 115th Senate are, on average, 61.9 years old and have been in the Senate for 10 years.  26 Senators graduated from Ivy League colleges (20 of them attended Harvard, Yale, or both) and 55 Senators have a Juris Doctor degree.  By contrast, only 4 senators earned an MD and 6 have an MBA.  Two have achieved PhDs.  Impressive credentials when one considers the mediocre to bad quality of their work.

 

Splitting by party is illuminating.  There are 46 Democrats, 17 of whom are Ivy League graduates (37%) and 32 of whom have a JD (70%).  By contrast, of the 52 Republicans, only 8 are Ivy League grads (15%) and 22 have a JD (42%).  All 4 MDs are Republicans.  The MBAs are split 4 Republicans to 2 Democrats.  Each party has a PhD senator.  50% of the Democrats have worked as lawyers while only 35% of the Republicans have.

 

Considering the low regard in which lawyers are held, it is no surprise that an institution that is dominated by lawyers and Ivy League elites would find itself with similar approval ratings.

Breaking the Elite Clique

I had mentioned in an earlier blog that Trump's election expanded the potential nominees.  I had offered Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerburg but Oprah Winfrey is also qualified by our new standard.  She is tremendously successful in a variety of enterprises, has name recognition as great or greater than Trump, and - unlike Trump - she is almost universally loved.  Though she didn't think she was qualified, now she thinks perhaps she is.  Although Oprah and I are on different sides of the political spectrum, I would rate her as more qualified than most Democratic politicians because she has been successful in the private sector.  Politicians with a long and distinguished career in government think nothing of piling regulations, taxes, and other burdens on the private sector but Oprah has been on the receiving end of that.  Also, she has more character than most politicians.

 

This is exactly why the insiders are up in arms.  Trump has vastly expanded the competition.  The cozy little clique of Harvard and Yale graduates have controlled the presidency since 1989 and are furious that their reign has been interrupted.  A third of all presidents have gone to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.  These universities are churning out a professional political class which has become the American aristocracy.  In order to save the clique, Trump must fail.  Trump must fail so badly that the voters realize their error and never commit it again.  Then the aristocracy can claim that it takes a particular education to be president and only we chosen few may apply.

 

Here are the last 8 elections.  Only schools that were attended by multiple nominees are highlighted.

 

2016 - Trump (U Penn) vs. Hillary (Yale)

2012 - Obama (Harvard) vs. Romney (Harvard)

2008 - Obama (Harvard) vs. McCain (Annapolis)

2004 - Bush II (Yale & Harvard) vs. Kerry (Yale)

2000 - Bush II (Yale & Harvard) vs. Gore (Harvard)

1996 - Clinton (Yale) vs. Dole (U Kansas) vs. Perot (Annapolis)

1992 - Clinton (Yale) vs. Bush I (Yale) vs. Perot (Annapolis)

1988 - Bush I (Yale) vs. Dukakis (Harvard)

 

Only Dole and Trump did not attend Harvard, Yale, or Annapolis.  Trump is the first person since Reagan in 1984 to win without having attended Harvard or Yale.  If she runs, Oprah attended Tennessee State University.