Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scaeagles
Interpretation of the Constitution should have nothing to do with diversity. The Constitution is the Constitution and where one was educated (assuming it was a school/schools that is/are respected - don't really need a nominee with a mail order degree) should not make a difference.
|
I disagree. Interpretation isn't done in a vacuum. If there was one magic answer, we wouldn't need a panel of 9. Heck, we wouldn't need a panel at all. Life experiences color our reasoning process. All schools have a certain character to them and that's bound to rub off on students, at least a little bit. East coast and west coast social environments are very different, and while education on both coasts might be substantively equivalent, my own experience meeting people from the other coast tells me that there are differences. (My dad likes to use the phrase "subtle but significant.") Aren't some political candidates criticised for being too "blue blood" and therefore insufficiently representative of the nation as a whole? Do we want a blue blood court.
Or, to put it another way, do you really think the school doesn't matter? Or if someone from a well-respected -- but not Ivy League -- school was nominated, would you think a little less of their academic preparation?
Eh, what do I really care. I'm just bitter today.