Gene Weingarten: My elderly dog could be a Supreme Court justice. Technically.
By Gene Weingarten,
On the day I write this, the United States Supreme Court has decided, in its collective wisdom, that if you worship a deity you can strangle puppies to death. As a person who does not worship a deity and loves puppies, you can imagine my anguish, and probably forgive me for my overstatement: The court didn’t actually say that particular puppies thing, but its ruling was almost that obviously insane, and you might agree with me even if you believe in God and hate puppies. The newly, wildly conservative court — with the addition of Amy Coney Barrett, who appears to believe that Jesus should be president — said that during a global plague, a government cannot limit the size of public gatherings if they are religious in nature. Even the pope, a man not known for secular views, publicly declared it nutso.
With a new administration arriving in Washington, political progressive fanatics have been advocating “packing the court,” an idea as historically ancient and rotting as Franklin Delano Roosevelt would be today, which is 138 years old. The idea is to add three progressive judges to the court, which is a Constitutional remedy, if an extreme one, to counterbalance the right-wingers. It’s a notoriously bad idea, and I reject it. I think we should add 35.
The Constitution is remarkably silent on who can be a Supreme Court justice. I have read the applicable portion of this document, and, applying my journalistic expertise, will now analyze it: Anyone can be a Supreme Court justice. There are no age restrictions, or citizenship restrictions, and you don’t even have to be a lawyer. It is not even completely clear you have to be human. I believe my elderly dog, Murphy, could be a Supreme Court justice. Technically.
Murphy is a wonderful organism, and very kind. I have personally seen her decline to eat an incapacitated baby squirrel, even though she clearly wanted to. She is my first choice. Also, in dog years, she is FDR’s age. So she is wise, by definition, and (this is hard to write), given a large dog’s lifespan, probably will be replaceable by another progressive within the tenure of the first Biden administration. Win-win.
I don’t want to have an extended list of candidates here. I feel Mr. Biden will be equal to the task. But I do want to suggest a “redline” criterion, even though it is not required by law: past drug use. To me, one of the worst decisions ever made by a governing body was killing the nomination of Douglas Ginsburg to the Supreme Court in 1987 because he had admitted he had smoked pot. I think it should be required.
That’s it. Some specific nominees:
Barack Hussein Obama, because it is apparently okay to have been born in Kenya.
Flo from Progressive Insurance because then she wouldn’t have time to make any more of those hideously annoying ads.
Some guy who, for every decision, will just flip a coin.
A Zoroastrian. We need 35, and it looks good, diversity-wise.
Former major league outfielder David Justice because he would be Justice Justice.
Someone with a thick mafia accent, who will say things like, “Youse guys need to listen up to dis ruling.…”
Two eighth-grade girls, Kaylie and Kyleigh, who never participate in oral arguments except to roll their eyes. Also, they will only issue dissents.
Email Gene Weingarten at gene.weingarten@washpost.com. Find chats and updates at wapo.st/magazine.
For stories, features such as Date Lab, @Work Advice and more, visit WP Magazine.
Follow the Magazine on Twitter.
Like us on Facebook.
Email us at wpmagazine@washpost.com.
