An Open Letter To President Obama"

Dear Mr. President,

The departure of Justice Scalia has left an immediate vacancy on the Supreme Court.  I am hereby humbly – my hands are shaking as I write this – applying for that job. 

I am not talking “Lifetime Appointment” – that is understandably out of the question.  I would not actually want that.  Who wants to physically deteriorate in public?  

I am thinking about a temporary appointment – until the next president is elected.  I believe I can capably handle things in the interim, which includes months of “Vacation Adjournment” so we are talking about a few weeks.  A handful of cases.  Hopefully easy ones.

I believe that what I am proposing here for is doable.  Correct me if I’m wrong – I am aware you used to teach this stuff – but I have this recollection from the “Constitutional Law” class I took recently at UCLA Extension that to serve on the Supreme Court, you do not necessarily have to be an attorney. 

In that case, a guy who wrote for Taxi and The Larry Sanders Show is not unilaterally disqualified.  Okay, I only “consulted” on Larry Sanders, but still.

I understand that what I am suggesting is radical, but I am convinced it’s not crazy.  Why not, for the first time in history, appoint a “regular person” to the Supreme Court?  Instead of… – Man, I’d hate to be wrong about this; it would knock a big hole in my credibility – having, as we have now, justices, all of whom were appellate judges.  Or at least judges.  I may be “off” with the “appellate.”  Forgive me.  I’m ignorant, and I’m scared.

Think about that.  One hundred percent Supreme Court Justices with the same background.  And not a single person from show business.  Can that really be acceptable?

Here’s something you probably already know.

Other countries – you can Google which ones because I do not know them offhand – offer appointed triumvirates, mixing “lay” people and practicing attorneys, injecting a variety of experiences into the adjudicating procedure. 

So there’s precedent.  Unless by “precedent” you mean American precedent, in which case there isn’t.  As you see, I can talk like an attorney if I have to.  Although I am not certain that’s a “plus”.    

Two Questions You May Want To Ask Me:

Question One: 

“Are you qualified to serve on the Supreme Court?” 

Technically, I am not.  I did attend law school for six weeks, which I imagine, as a qualification, is hardly sufficient.  And it was a Canadian law school at that. 

The thing is, applying the commonly accepted standard of “qualified” would preclude a vast number of us from gaining ascendancy to the Highest Court in the Land, leaving only attorneys for effective consideration.    

I do not know this for certain, but barring a person from serving on the Supreme Court because they are not an attorney when it is not a Constitutional requirement that they be an attorney – that sounds like “workplace discrimination” to me.  Should that be happening at the Supreme Court?  I mean, “Holy Frankfurter!”

Question Two: 

“Can you be impartial?”

Okay, this is going to be controversial.  But in my view, no judges are impartial.  You want evidence?  Every important Supreme Court decision that’s gone 5-to-4 along ideological fault-lines.

I have never understood this.  There’s a “Confirmation Hearing” for Supreme Court Justice.  The candidate’s record as a lower court judge reflects that, when ideological considerations are involved, they rule consistently in what can be objectively determined to be a liberal or conservative direction.  A senator on the Judiciary Committee then asks,

“Can you be impartial?”

It seems to me the only honest answer they can give to the question of impartiality is:

“Well I haven’t been so far.”

What do I offer as candidate for temporary Supreme Court Justice?  Honesty.  Punctuality.  And, holding my biases in check, an unequivocally open mind.  Rest assured, I will not “nickel-and-dime” you on compensation.  I’ll take whatever you’re offering.  A “pro-rated” arrangement comes to mind.  You can “round up” or “round down”.  I am not losing this job over pennies.

Mr. President, we have an opportunity to be bold.  Try something memorable. Something for the history books beyond “He was the first African-American president” and “He liked to sing.” 

You want to go the “traditional” route?  Fine.  See where that gets you.  Tipoff:  “Guantanamo – open or closed?”

Will it be easy?  Of course not.  But to those who say that my confirmation to the Supreme Court is an unfathomable “Hail Mary”, I say:  Mr. President,

Drop back…

And let it fly.

Sincerely,

Earl Pomerantz.

(Applicant for the opening at the Supreme Court.)

(Note to Readers:  If any of you knows President Obama or somebody who does, I’d appreciate it if you would pass this along.  Thank you.)