WASHINGTON (AP) — Did you ever buy porn, sniff glue, have sex in junior high? Exactly how many times? White House lawyers are scouring a life’s worth of information about President Barack Obama’s potential picks for the Supreme Court, from the mundane to the intensely personal. In trying to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the president could alter the balance of the court for decades — but only if he can get his nominee through Republicans in the Senate. Prospective justices are put through the nation’s most thorough background check, an invasive process where nothing is off-limits. After all, a surprise dredged up later could scuttle confirmation. So candidates’ taxes, writings, childhoods, business dealings, medical histories and, yes, love lives, are all scrutinized for potential red flags.
So your dream is to grow up big and strong…and become a Supreme Court justice? I could question your sanity, but the more pressing question is why any reasonable person would want to be considered for a position which requires that every corner of your life be poked into for potential read flags? Beyond the qualifications and legal philosophy of a potential nominee is the fear that they may have actually lived a life may have done something that could potentially embarrass the President responsible for the nomination.
The process is a pretty sad and depressing commentary on our collective expectations and hypocrisy regarding. We expect Supreme Court justices, and most any government official, elected or appointed, to adhere to standards most of us would never dream of holding ourselves too. I’ve smoked marijuana, which despite whatever qualifications (no matter how stellar they might be), summarily disqualifies me. I’ve had sex in positions other than missionary, which also appears to be a deal-breaker. I’ve done other things that anyone who’s any sort of life at all will recognize as not especially immoral or controversial.
Is this really what we expect- Supreme Court justices so squeaky clean they’ve never actually experienced anything meaningful? Is that the sort of person we want participating in making decisions which could potentially impact America for generations…or longer?>
Justice Anthony Kennedy sat through 10-plus hours of FBI interviews — and a three-hour session with the attorney general and White House counsel in which all “conceivable no-holds-barred questions were asked,” according to a memorandum archived in the Reagan Library.
Among the questions Kennedy was asked: Have you ever engaged in kinky sex? Did you shoplift as a kid? What about any associations with groups like the Ku Klux Klan? Ever abuse a girlfriend? Engage in cruelty to animals? And tell us about sex in college: How often, how many women, and did you ever contract a venereal disease?
I understand the need for caution and for ensuring that a nominee is qualified AND free of potentially embarrassing skeletons in their closet. That said, when you’re vetting a candidate and asking about their sex life- IN COLLEGE- I think it’s safe to call that as intrusive as is it offensive.
The problem with this sort of vetting process is that indisputably well-qualified people may be disqualified because of something they may have done 20 or 30 (or even more) years ago. How many of us are the same people we were 20 or 30 years ago? How many of us would want to be held accountable for a mistake we made 20 or 30 years ago? At what point is it assumed that we’re not defined by what our young and stupid selves did in a moment of weakness and/or immaturity?
Not that I would ever willingly subject myself to such scrutiny, but even if I was willing, the criteria is so ridiculously intolerant and exclusive that I’d be disqualified by something I did when I was 18. Going on four decades later, can that REALLY be argued to be indicative of the person I am now? Of course not…but that’s the standard potential Supreme Court nominees are held to? I can’t help but wonder how many good, capable, and truly brilliant legal minds haven’t been nominated because of some picayune “offense” that occurred three, perhaps four decades ago?
At some point, I think we need to give some serious consideration to the ridiculous standards Supreme Court justices (and others in positions of importance) are expected to meet. Are we really OK with holding people to standards we’d never dream of holding ourselves to? Are we really good with a process predicated on epic hypocrisy and standards of behavior few who’ve lived any sort of life at all could hope to meet?
Or are we really OK with safe, reflexive ideologues who’ve always colored between the lines? I’d submit that we do ourselves a disservice by relying on such ridiculously stringent and hypocritical criteria. We deserve better.
