Jamal Greene: belief

Transcript context

…Isn’t that a main way in which the court is especially undemocratic? That is, most people in America are not lawyers. Just a general sense, whether correct or not, that the law plays too strong a role in society. Many people will say there are too many lawyers. There are lawyer jokes. Especially if we’re going to expand the numbers on the Supreme Court, as you’ve argued for, wouldn’t that be a great time to introduce, say, three to five non-lawyers? Have a philosopher. Have an economist. I wouldn’t be opposed to that, necessarily. I’d have to think about it more, but I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to that. Again, I do think there are a number of kinds of cases the court hears that are not well suited to people who are not lawyers. There are also cases the court hears that are not well suited to people who are lawyers, or at least not uniquely suited or especially suited to people who are lawyers. I would not be totally opposed to that idea. I resist a little bit the idea that the reason for that is grounded in democracy in some serious sense, or representation in some sense, insofar as I do think that the court plays a role that’s different from other democratic institutions. Again, I don’t think it has to be played by lawyers. I think that’s a fair criticism. I’m not just saying it doesn’t have to be, but why, clearly, shouldn’t it always be played by lawyers? If I look at antitrust cases, it seems to me a pretty high percentage of justices, historically, don’t understand antitrust very well because they’re not economists, which is fine, not to be held against them. Again, it’s an argument for having people with, say, business experience on the court, people who work with children.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.