Inclusive of what?

We should expand the Supreme Court. I am serious. We should add another 100 justices. Tack an addition onto the building in Washington.

I suggest this because of the way we now go about selecting justices. We select them on the basis of sex and race. And then we pat ourselves on the back. And we tell each other our court is now more “representative” and more “inclusive.”

More representative and inclusive of what? Well, of Hispanics. And African-Americans. And women.

This seems to me to be a highly prejudiced way to select justices. Justice is supposed to be blind. But, hey, what do I know?  People who know about these things tell me we just have to have a Hispanic judge. And one or two African-Americans. And some women. And I say “Go for it.”

But I also have to ask about the Asians. We’ve got lots of Asian-Americans. We’ve got lots of Native Americans. How come these folks don’t get included when “inclusion” comes around? We’ve got lots of Protestants. How come they don’t get represented when our court becomes more “representative”? (I may be wrong, but I believe there are no Protestants on the bench.) And don’t get me started on illegal immigrants. Who represents them?



How about us left-handed folks?  Does anybody think about us when they go searching for justices?  I am deadly serious. Left-handed folks suffer a lot of problems because of the way they are. They suffer more accidents with equipment. That’s because tools and equipment are all designed for right-handed people. There is a whole lot of prejudice going on. And nobody does anything about it. Probably because they give us the back of the hand – the right hand – when they go searching for justices.

Incidentally, there is a lot of prejudice against left-handed people in some professions. When is the last time you saw a left-handed catcher in the major leagues? How about a left-handed third baseman? You could list all the left-handed violinists on the back of a postage stamp.

How about gay folks?  Why don’t we find some gay judges to work down at the Supreme Court? And let’s hire some disabled people for the court. People confined to wheel chairs. People who have debilitating diseases. Surely they number in the millions. Don’t they deserve justices who are similarly disabled? Wouldn’t such justices be more likely to understand issues disabled Americans are sensitive to?

How about tall people? And short people? You know it will be a frosty night in Hades when we have a dwarf on the bench. Tell me that isn’t prejudice.     

Our justices are nearly all graduates of Yale and Harvard. And I believe none of them have experience in the armed forces. Sounds like prejudice to me. 

It seems to me that the only way we can be truly “inclusive” is to expand the court. Hey, we’re expanding other branches of government like topsy. It won’t cost much to add a bunch of justices. Robes are cheap.

Let’s list all the significant categories Americans fall into. Include all the races and colors and sexual preferences. (Let’s hear it for the cross-dressers!) Then appoint at least one justice from each of the categories.

It wouldn’t be any more ridiculous than what we do now.

From Tom ... as in Morgan.                  

For more columns, for Tom’s radio shows and new TV show (and to write to Tom): tomasinmorgan.com.

Today's Other Stories



© 2014 Snyder Communications/The Evening Sun
29 Lackawanna Avenue, Norwich, NY 13815 - (607) 334-3276
We're on Facebook