A recent poll conducted by Findlaw shows that two thirds of Americans cannot name even one Supreme Court justice. Here are the percentages who can name each of the nine current justices [HT: Josh Blackman]:
* Clarence Thomas – 19%
* John Roberts – 16%
* Sonia Sotomayor – 15%
* Ruth Bader Ginsburg – 13%
* Antonin Scalia – 10%
* Samuel Alito – 8%
* John Paul Stevens – 8%
* Anthony Kennedy – 6%
* Stephen Breyer – 3%
Clarence Thomas, the most widely known justice, is relatively more famous in large part because of the Anita Hill sexual harassment charges rather than because of his legal rulings.
The Findlaw survey result is not surprising. The public has strong incentives to be “rationally ignorant” about political and legal issues, and numerous previous surveys show that most are in fact ignorant about very basic facts about both specific policy issues and the structure of the political system. As Cornell law professor Michael Dorf points out in the summary of the poll results linked above:
“This result is not especially surprising nor, by itself, should it be alarming,” said Michael C. Dorf, a former Supreme Court clerk who currently teaches constitutional law at Cornell University Law School and authors a legal column for FindLaw. “Even though Supreme Court rulings can have a major impact on contentious issues such as the death penalty, abortion rights, discrimination and environmental protection, the Court issues its rulings as a collective body…. What is a source for concern are polls consistently showing that many Americans are unfamiliar with basic features of our constitutional system.”
I agree with Dorf’s statement that knowledge of the justices’ names isn’t particularly important in itself. At the same time, however, ignorance of the names of Supreme Court justices does usually indicate a lack of attention to their rulings. It’s hard to read much about Supreme Court decisions without seeing their names mentioned repeatedly. Moreover, ignorance about specific justices also probably indicates inability to evaluate individual justices’ performance. That, in turn, makes it harder for voters to evaluate presidents and senators based on the justices they nominate and confirm. Assessments of past justices are surely important in determining which party should be trusted with the selection of future ones.
Finally, it’s also worth noting that the public is also ignorant of many basic aspects of the Constitution itself. For example, a 2006 survey found that only 28% of Americans can name two or more First Amendment rights; on the plus side, the same study found that 52% can name two or more characters on the Simpsons. Public ignorance about the justices is joined with an even more troubling ignorance about the document they are supposed to enforce.
UPDATE: I have corrected a mistake in identifying Professor Michael Dorf’s school affiliation, which I at first wrongly listed as Columbia rather than Cornell. I thank VC reader Joshua Mize for pointing out this error.
EMB says:
The only thing surprising to me here is that only 52% can name two characters from the Simpsons.
June 3, 2010, 12:44 amNunzio says:
Looks like Breyer needs to raise his profile. Cameras at oral argument might raise the ability of people to name a few of the justices
June 3, 2010, 12:51 ambbbeard says:
This reminds me of the famous ‘gotcha’ when Andy Hiller quizzed George Bush for the names of the leaders of Chechnya, Pakistan, Taiwan, and India. (Yes, I had to look up which four countries were involved — as well as Hiller’s name).
My take at the time was: who cares? It’s more important to know something about the history and international relations of the countries than to know who the current leader is. I still couldn’t tell you the names of the current leaders of India and Pakistan, despite the fact that they are nuclear powers who have fought each other in the past. Nor could I tell you the name of Taiwan’s leader, despite the fact that Taiwan is a flash point that could lead to a Sino-American war. And Chechnya?
So all I would ask of any rationally ignorant American is to know the Supreme Court decides which laws are constitutional, and that the ideological balance of the court is both close and precarious. And I’d bet most Americans don’t even know that much.
BBB
June 3, 2010, 12:56 amDon de Drain says:
I nominate Bart Simpson for the next vacancy on the Supreme Court! (He’s the only character on the Simpson’s that I can name off of the top of my head– I have never watched a complete Simpsons show.)
June 3, 2010, 1:25 amAJK says:
Somewhat amusingly, Michael Dorf is a professor at Cornell, not Columbia. (Talk about rational ignorance!)
June 3, 2010, 1:35 amRonald C. Den Otter says:
So much for popular constitutionalism…
June 3, 2010, 1:57 amGuy says:
Poor Breyer! And he’s always so concerned about public education on the role of the Court and encouraging active political involvement. Maybe this poll reveals his ulterior motive.
June 3, 2010, 2:09 amdearieme says:
If the Supremes merely interpreted the Constitution instead of making it up as they go along then no-one much would know their names, and a very healthy thing that would be.
June 3, 2010, 4:37 amSeth M. says:
Happy, Sleepy, Grumpy, Donner, Blitzen, Inky, Blinky, Pinky and Clarence Thomas.
June 3, 2010, 5:04 amHow to make a USB Spy Camera | Apple Ipod Repair | Replace Ipod Battery says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Two Thirds of Americans Cannot Name Even … [...]
June 3, 2010, 5:41 amJ. Aldridge says:
Bet the same amount can’t name their state Rep or Senators, but more likely to be able to name US Reps and Senators. That is more disturbing and probably a consequence of judicial activism (like court invented incorporation).
June 3, 2010, 6:08 amMartinned says:
I can’t even name a single justice on my own country’s supreme court, yet I think I could name all nine in the US. What does that say about me? And about the Dutch supreme court? (In my defense I think I could name two ECJ justices, as well as a handful of ECJ advocates-general, who are the only ones who actually sign their name prominently under their opinion.s)
June 3, 2010, 6:38 amMike Bryant says:
I wonder how many heads of living corporations can name them? With the gift they received the majority should be invited to every fundraiser.
June 3, 2010, 7:06 amEli Rabett says:
They don’t have to name them, they own five of them
June 3, 2010, 7:59 amMCM says:
Welcome to the common law system. It’s worked pretty well for England for 1000 years, and Americans as long as we’ve been around.
June 3, 2010, 8:24 amShelbyC says:
If by gift you mean kick in the nuts. It’s a gift to the politicians. Do you really think corportations are sitting there saying, Oh, boy, we can give away more money now?
June 3, 2010, 8:26 amMCM says:
Yeah, I often go around voluntarily soliciting kicks in the nuts.
And I’m sure you can link me to all the business leaders who favor eliminating all corporate contributions to elections, right?
June 3, 2010, 8:33 amJoseph Slater says:
I marvel at J. Aldridge’s ability — using two short, unsupported assumptions — to get to his pet theory of incorporation.
I also wonder about dearieme’s assumption that Supreme Court judges who simply make up rules as they go along would be more obscure than judges who follow the Constitution.
June 3, 2010, 8:36 amFrank Drackman says:
I like Clarence Thomas, he’s the only one who doesn’t talk just to here himself talk.
June 3, 2010, 9:10 amAnd he didn’t take the politically easy path of marrying a Black Chick.
Too bad Judge Judy wouldn’t take the pay cut.
Smooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Ruth outpolling Nino? That seems odd.
June 3, 2010, 9:20 amkrs says:
Perhaps I’m speaking only for myself, but I would ask the lawyers to try to recall how much they knew about the Supreme Court before law school.
Having been a lawyer for several years and read sites like this one and SCOTUSblog for a few years, I can name all of the Justices, picture where they sit for arguments, tell you their approximate ages, backgrounds, where they went to law school, and probably name a handful of their clerks… and I can probably name all of their predecessors going back 50 years or so. I imagine that any other lawyer who pays much attention to the Supreme Court can do the same and more, and from that perspective it’s almost unthninkable to imagine someone who can’t even name the current 9.
But then I remember how much I knew before law school about the Supreme Court and the courts in general. I could probably have named 3 or 4 Justices then and was a lot more clueless about what the Supreme Court did and how it worked, other than that it decided Brown v. Board of Education and a bunch of civil rights cases and declared stuff unconstitutional from time to time.
Maybe I was shamefully ignorant then, but when I consider how much of my knowledge of the Supreme Court is a direct result of my having gone to law school, it doesn’t shock me so much to consider that other people might know as little as I did about the Supreme Court before I started law school.
June 3, 2010, 9:24 amDonP. says:
Three words: SCOTUS Trading Cards
As soon as the Animal Band craze dies off they’ll be the next big pop fad for Tweens and Teens.
June 3, 2010, 10:18 amtroll_dc2 says:
Here are two examples of ideologues with the ability to sign on to any available thread to push their causes.
June 3, 2010, 10:37 amLaura Victoria says:
This is the same reason I’m sick of law being the only profession every amateur can have a valid opinion about. If I hear much more polling data about the 70% “approval” of the “Arizona Immigration Law” I will go even more insane than I already am.
Next, I’d like to see a poll asking the public whether they believe bypass surgery or a stent is the best procedure after a second heart attack.
June 3, 2010, 10:42 amTwo-Thirds of Americans Can’t Name Any U.S. Supreme Court Justices » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog says:
[...] Volokh Conspiracy) Comments [...]
June 3, 2010, 10:52 amAngus says:
Well, law and every other profession on earth.
June 3, 2010, 10:55 amCJColucci says:
And he didn’t take the politically easy path of marrying a Black Chick.
June 3, 2010, 11:00 amI married one, and it hasn’t done me any political good. Of course, if Justice Thomas’s Constitutional views had carried the day a few decades ago, his marriage would be a crime in his state of residence.
Martinned says:
Tell me about it. Being an economist is so much more fun: we get to have an opinion about everything other than economics as well! (For the record, I’m a lawyer/jurist too, so please don’t hurt me for commenting here…)
June 3, 2010, 11:06 amtroll_dc2 says:
I own a book by an economist whose subtitle is “The economics of music composition in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”
June 3, 2010, 11:32 amLaura Victoria says:
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that one had to be a lawyer to have an educated opinion. My background is strongly grounded in economics, and I view economics as the profession that legitimately allows commentary on every issue facing humanity.
More broadly, non-lawyers can certainly become educated about legal issues, as so many are here. Being a lawyer is not a necessary condition for intelligent analysis. Conversely, being a lawyer is not a sufficient condition for such analysis.
June 3, 2010, 11:36 amCan't find a good name says:
That didn’t strike me as strange. My guess (confirmed by Googling for that title) was that the book would discuss things like composers being subsidized by kings and nobility vs. earning their living by selling sheet music of their works, whether they had adequate copyright protection for their works, etc.
If the book takes an economic perspective on why works were written in F major rather than D major, or in 4/4 time rather than 3/4 time or things like that, I would find it strange, but not if it deals with more mundane, clearly economic-related issues.
(I assume this refers to “Quarter Notes and Bank Notes: The Economics of Music Composition in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” by F. M. Scherer. It sounds interesting; maybe I’ll check it out sometime.)
June 3, 2010, 11:41 amSCOTUSblog » Thursday round-up says:
[...] be named at all, Clarence Thomas is known most often (19%). The results are reproduced at the Volokh Conspiracy. Print This Post [...]
June 3, 2010, 11:42 amAlice de Tocqueville says:
I took an informal poll in a very affluent little burg, asking everyone who’d speak to me whose Congressional district they were in (I really needed to know). 18 out of 25 did not know.
Most American so-called men can cite ‘RBI”s, ERA’s, who was traded to what team when, point spreads, all that stuff, but not anything about their government. Women are only marginally better, hence Ginsburg’s higher name recognition, I’d guess.
I used to go door-to-door registering voters, but I quit in ’88.
June 3, 2010, 11:45 amAfter a long, hot day and a little reflection on the people I’d met and registered, I decided that if someone cared about their own self-government, they’d get registered – it’s real easy in CA, and if they’re not willing to do that much for themselves, they’re probably not going to spend much effort informing themselves, so why should I work to add confusion to the body politic?
Martinned says:
I tend to use Becker’s work on the economics of the family as an example of economic imperialism gone too far. It’s great stuff, but you should be careful not to make too much of it.
I tend to be careful to distinguish between the question of what economic science has to say about something and the question of how that translates into a concrete policy recommendation. For a sensible recommendation, economics is often only one of the ingredients.
June 3, 2010, 11:45 amMartinned says:
Here’s a question: What are the ethics of making a voting guide (i.e. a – hopefully neutral – guide that translates political opinions into an optimal vote) for people who can’t read very well? Here in the Netherlands we have a general election next week, so some NGO came up with this. (The first one is about Wilders and hate speech. The caption reads “Everyone can say what they like in public, even if that leads to discrimination.”)
June 3, 2010, 11:50 amLaura Victoria says:
More than a little off topic, but now that my Gravatar has finally appeared, I would like to share with fellow conspirators that the scales out of balance image was taken straight from the Colorado Supreme Court homepage. http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/
It went up in January 2009 when they revamped their website. I’ve emailed various people at that court, as well as judges from my own former district in the mountains about it. I figured it was a little inside joke from the web designer.
Now I just think it’s taking transparency in government to a whole new level.
June 3, 2010, 11:53 amSk says:
“Moreover, ignorance about specific justices also probably indicates inability to evaluate individual justices’ performance. That, in turn, makes it harder for voters to evaluate presidents and senators based on the justices they nominate and confirm. Assessments of past justices are surely important in determining which party should be trusted with the selection of future ones.”
Really? You expect me as a citizen to keep track of, say, the decisions by Justice Breyer, then reflect on who nominated him (I don’t know. Nixon? Carter? I haven’t a clue as to which Senator sponsored him). Then assume that the party of today is accurately reflected by the nomination performed in the 1970′s or 1980′s, then allow my voting preference to reflect my opinion of the party based on this 25 year old decision?
“For example, a 2006 survey found that only 28% of Americans can name two or more First Amendment rights; on the plus side, the same study found that 52% can name two or more characters on the Simpsons. Public ignorance about the justices is joined with an even more troubling ignorance about the document they are supposed to enforce.”
Why? The supreme court justices themselves don’t agree on what the different amendments actually mean, so why is it important that the citizenry know what the amendments say? The text of an amendment can have one impact on a citizen’s rights (say, the right to own guns), or the exact opposite impact (no right to own guns unless you are a member of the national guard), based on the arbitrary condition of whether there are 5 Republicans or 5 Democrats currently on the Court. So why is it important to know what the document actually says?
The bottom line: your hobby (studying the horserace of politics and law) isn’t most people’s hobby (baseball, computer games, knitting, bowling, gardening, etc etc).
Sk
June 3, 2010, 11:56 amtroll_dc2 says:
That’s the book. It does not discuss matters such as you refer to, but it does discuss why certain forms were pushed by musical publishers. See pp. 188-190.
End of tangent from the theme of the thread, I hope.
June 3, 2010, 12:09 pmTonetel says:
June 3, 2010, 12:16 pmCause and effect…
Kenneth Brooks says:
And we all know why the average American knows the name Clarence Thomas. It has to do with that private piece of collagen that was alleged to have been present upon the soda can.
June 3, 2010, 12:18 pmbbbeard says:
That’s because there is a widespread misconception that the legal system has something to do with justice. And everyone feels entitled to have an opinion about justice.
One could argue that one of the problems this country faces is the overabundance of people who claim to be entitled to make rules for everyone else because of their specialized education. Speaking as someone with no legal training whatsoever, I think this stinks.
June 3, 2010, 12:30 pmtroll_dc2 says:
One could argue that another of the problems this country faces is the overabundance of people who like to express their opinions even though they have no idea as to what they are talking about.
June 3, 2010, 12:49 pmAlice de Tocqueville says:
“Here’s a question: What are the ethics of making a voting guide (i.e. a — hopefully neutral — guide that translates political opinions into an optimal vote) for people who can’t read very well? Here in the Netherlands we have a general election next week, so some NGO came up with this. (The first one is about Wilders and hate speech. The caption reads “Everyone can say what they like in public, even if that leads to discrimination.”)
I’m sorry, Martinner, the little Dutch I learned in Amsterdam has faded for lack of use, and I’m not clear on what the issue is. There is a group in my community of people who speak Spanish, and wear identifying badges, so they can help people. But I was dealing with people who can read English perfectly well, but don’t. It’s even harder to communicate with them.
&@SK
I think you’re making it seem harder than it has to be. I did know all that stuff in high school, by the way, and I think if American history and government were taught in a more engaging way, and our young people were involved, then at least in later years, when there’s often less time to spend reading, one has a framework and presumably knows resources to get up to speed on an issue. Other than that, I always caution people not to listen to campaign speeches, but to look at the candidates’ records.
June 3, 2010, 1:01 pmDuffy Pratt says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9myHhpS9s
That’s the flip side…
June 3, 2010, 1:01 pmNunzio says:
Laura,
The scales are in balance. It’s just a parallax view.
June 3, 2010, 1:05 pmAnonsters says:
I would’ve thought philosophers would fit the bill nicely. Even though when you talk to actual philosophers, they’ll almost always preface everything they say about something that they don’t specialize in with, “This isn’t my area, so if you want better analysis, ask XYZ.” That is, at least, my experience with analytic philosophers.
How often do you see people in other professions routinely saying things like that before opining?
June 3, 2010, 1:07 pmMartinned says:
That wasn’t the point. My point was that there might be a level of education below which it would be unethical for people to (be allowed to) vote. Dutch ballots don’t come with pictures on them, so how will someone who can’t read know which box to tick? And even if someone can read well enough to read the names on the ballot paper, should they be allowed to vote if they can’t comprehend even a simple newspaper article?
June 3, 2010, 1:14 pmiPod Video (5th gen) LCD installation | Apple Ipod Repair | Replace Ipod Battery says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Two Thirds of Americans Cannot Name Even … [...]
June 3, 2010, 1:44 pmleo marvin says:
I wonder what percentage could name a VC blogger if you spotted them the name of the site.
June 3, 2010, 1:53 pmADF Alliance Alert » Two thirds of Americans cannot name even one Supreme Court Justice says:
[...] Somin writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: A recent poll conducted by Findlaw shows that two thirds of Americans cannot name even one Supreme [...]
June 3, 2010, 2:01 pmCJColucci says:
Laura Victoria and troll_dc2 had better be careful, or someone will accuse them of demanding that people who can’t resist the urge to spout off without knowing what they’re talking about shut the fuck up.
June 3, 2010, 2:04 pmLaura Victoria says:
I don’t care about people spouting off. What I can’t stand is media like Fox News and politicians acting like uninformed opinions garnered from a vague polling question should govern fairly complex legal issues.
June 3, 2010, 2:19 pmathEIst says:
I’ll bet that upset Nino a lot. Enough to resign??
June 3, 2010, 2:47 pmRegistering Domain Name | Domain Names | Webhosting | SSL Certificates | Website Tonight says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Two Thirds of Americans Cannot Name Even … [...]
June 3, 2010, 2:52 pmAlice de Tocqueville says:
I met an Irish fellow in Denver for the Dem convention, who came there just to lobby the Democrats. He said that what happened in Washington had more effect on him than what went on in Dublin. There’s some globalization for you.
June 3, 2010, 2:52 pmAlice de Tocqueville says:
Glad to see one less propertytarian!
June 3, 2010, 2:57 pmAlice de Tocqueville says:
I was afraid that’s where you were going. Let’s hope the (democratic) state has lots of money for voter education. In fact, states with high numbers of illiterate people do use pictures on ballots, which correspond to parties or candidates.
June 3, 2010, 3:01 pmI can tell you that it’s very important to realize that we value democracy for its fairness, not because it’s the way to find the truth. After all, if you want to cure cancer you don’t submit the question to a vote; and idiots are still subject to the laws, so they must be allowed to participate in their own destruction, er, government, lest they riot in the streets like all other freedom-loving people must.
So I question your use of the word ‘ethical’; would it be ethical not to give illiterate people the right to vote? Perhaps, if they will not be subject to the laws or taxes, etc.
Democracy is a cheap blow-out preventer (to use a now-common obscenity) for the ruling class, (and everyone knows we can always use a new obscenity for that.)
I must reiterate that I find immigrants much more astute about political questions, and that it’s well worth helping them to become voting citizens, whatever their reading levels or lack of. Americans, not so much — they think they live in Disneyland, and in a wAY, THEY ACTUALLY DO.
Martinned says:
In my case the reason why I don’t know the names of the justices is that I don’t practice law before them. Since their work isn’t anywhere near as politicised as that of the US supreme court, there’s no reason to know their names unless you work with them/before them.
June 3, 2010, 3:06 pmMartinned says:
Point well taken. John Stuart Mill proposed letting people with certain educational qualifications vote double. (Considerations on Representative Government) The problem with uneducated people voting (to be clear, that means people uneducated about politics, etc.) is that a voter doesn’t just decide on the government he or she is going to be stuck with for the next four years. Each voter also decides on who will rule over everybody else. Imho, the fact that the act of voting is not only an act of self-determination but also an exercise of power over everybody else justifies certain measures to assure that this power is exercised responsibly. However, you’re right to point out that in practice such a thing would be undesirable: the “lower classes” are dissatisfied enough as it is.
June 3, 2010, 3:16 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Can’t find a good name,
My guess (confirmed by Googling for that title) was that the book would discuss things like composers being subsidized by kings and nobility vs. earning their living by selling sheet music of their works, whether they had adequate copyright protection for their works, etc.
Sorry to re-open the tangent, but . . . the economics of music in that period is a seriously large and interesting subject. There’s not only what troll_dc2 says is the actual subject (what got published — whole compositional careers were based around what sort of music bourgeois families wanted to play and which instruments were in vogue where); there’s how composers supported themselves, from self-publishing (Telemann, e.g., did the physical engraving of some of his music) to chicanery (several composers sold allegedly “exclusive” rights to particular works to different publishers in different countries); there’s the tasty subject of piracy, which was rife in the music business in 18th-c. Europe.
There are also more esoteric subjects. Take the tailoring of editions to local tastes. I have an edition of Haydn’s Op. 20 quartets (written 1772) in which the cello part has a very full figured bass in it. (For those who don’t know the term, this is a sort of harmonic shorthand that allows a keyboard player to improvise a harmonically appropriate accompaniment over a bass line.) Now, no one in his senses today would use a keyboard in a Haydn Op. 20 quartet; these are pieces best known for their free and high cello parts. They just aren’t pieces where everything works of the bass line and the bass line is always the cello. But there was apparently a North German Hausmusik market in which even the newest chamber music just had to have figures in it, otherwise it didn’t sell.
June 3, 2010, 3:18 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Back on topic (sorry about that).
Does anyone else find it odd to see Kennedy so far down the list? I would have thought the constant discussion of him as “the swing vote” would make him better known.
June 3, 2010, 3:20 pmGuy says:
Obviously a stent, only a medicinal activist would perform a bypass.
June 3, 2010, 3:36 pmHow many Supreme Court justices do you know? | Something About The Law says:
[...] out that two thirds of Americans cannot name even one Supreme Court justice. Their knowledge of the law, too, leaves much to be desired. For example, a 2006 survey found that [...]
June 3, 2010, 3:37 pmhow to fix a ipod touch or iphone that has water damage. poo | Apple Ipod Repair | Replace Ipod Battery says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Two Thirds of Americans Cannot Name Even … [...]
June 3, 2010, 4:02 pmJ. Aldridge says:
Well if they were really “unsupported” I am sure you would had no problem explaining why. Since you didn’t I think you are simply in denial.
June 3, 2010, 4:27 pmAlice de Tocqueville says:
Yes, Martinner, we are into a righteous can of worms here, even if, by “lower classes” you mean those who don’t agree with me. (So tedious and time-consuming weeding them all out for re-education, for I find that even many of those with letters after their names are clueless. It’s enough to make one sentence them to picking strawberries, which would sort them out pretty quickly.) I’m afraid that those of us who believe in democracy have to resort to the streets, because certain segments of ‘our’ society get, in effect, way more than two votes. It’s accepted in America that if you can afford to buy politicians, then you should get your way. Need I point out that for generations now, those who get into the most “educational” institutions move most quickly up the economic ladder, or at least get their
grubby, er well-manicured hands on the till fastest?There is a big diffference between lack of education and just plain not looking at the truth.
However, democracy is predicated on a scientific truth, which is that we are all in this boat/planet together, and must make common cause with each other. We are all our brothers’ keepers. We cannot have separate laws for ourselves. Mother Nature is in charge, not the Pope, not the army, not the “educated”, not the elite, not even those sweating in the fields to feed us all. But maybe something as simple as publicizing the reccomendations of groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists can help those who are questioning the wisest choice. Better yet, those scientists should try harder to educate the rest.
June 3, 2010, 4:37 pmAnd IMHO, the “uneducated” aren’t nearly angry enough!
Martinned says:
Now there’s something that someone really ought to fix. Given the link in US politics between money and politics, you’re absolutely right that education and power already correlate more than enough. Over here in Europe, on the other hand, it is much more difficult to buy politicians since there is very little they can spend the money on without getting caught. They certainly can’t spend it on their campaigns. I think we can all agree that any such corruption is highly undesirable. (Though the concept of giving money without a quid pro quo of any kind is of course a different matter.)
As an exercise in political philosophy, it is very well possible to consider a political system without money, and pose the question of what an ideal system of (representative) democracy might look like in those circumstances. There’s a reason why we don’t let children and non-citizens vote, for example. To act as if democracy is unequivocally good is exceedingly short-sighted. For democracy to work, it needs to be bedded in an institutional tradition, as well as a system that guarantees fundamental liberties and the rule of law. Hence the failures of the Bush administration bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, in the 1990s people posed the question of whether Russia didn’t perhaps have “too much democracy” all at once, given that it had no democratic tradition of any kind, and was going through rapid changes in other areas as well. I guess that question has become moot now, but that doesn’t mean I’m not still interested in the answer.
June 3, 2010, 5:26 pmJohn Herbison says:
I have read that Mr. Thomas’s first wife was three fourths black and one fourth Japanese.
June 3, 2010, 5:31 pmepluribus says:
Martinned says:
I would amend the above statement to read that there is a level of knowledge below which it is unethical for people to vote. I don’t think anybody should be prohibited from voting because somebody else deems that they are not sufficiently educated. I do, however, think that voters should voluntarily abstain from voting on candidates or issues when they don’t know enough to make an intelligent vote. I routinely do this in state ane local elections.
June 3, 2010, 5:37 pmChrisTS says:
Anonsters:
As the true Masters of the Universe, it behooves us to be modest.
June 3, 2010, 5:44 pmJohn Herbison says:
Of course. How many bubbles are in that bar of soap, anyway?
June 3, 2010, 5:45 pmMartinned says:
Remember, I started on this line of thought (at least today) because of the question of illiterates voting. So I certainly wasn’t thinking of any large number of people. (Though some quick research shows that, according to a Dutch charity that deals with illiteracy, 7,9% of Dutch people are functionally illiterate, which seems like a lot.) I know that this is a sensitive subject, because it is one of the ways the southern states used to stop black people from voting, but I don’t think that is sufficient reason to declare the idea as such a taboo. At the same time, none of this means it isn’t important to educate people/voters. Also, in places where illiteracy is widespread, a more legitimate solution has to be found. (Like the pictures, etc.)
June 3, 2010, 6:02 pmAlice de Tocqueville says:
I’d love to know how Europe worked it so that corporations can’t contribute to campaigns.
Unfortunately, the brutality of Bush’s invasion of Iraq drove away anyone with education or means, and the profound ignorance of the provisional government he installed did in the rest, so that only the poorest and least educated were left to be manipulated by the mullahs into civil war. I have this from some Iraqi women I met, one of which was a civil engineer under Hussein, whose husband worked for her (they were a Sunni-Shiite couple; their son was kidnapped by the Interior Ministry that Bush installed).
As for Russia, I don’t think the problem was too much democracy, but rather, the ‘Chicago boys’ who’re bringing down our economy got to Russia first, and helped to enable the wolves. For this, see Francis X. Boyle – sorry I can’t hunt down the link for you, have to help my grandson with something.
June 3, 2010, 6:06 pmMartinned says:
Easy. Both the limits on contributions to campaigns (both hard and soft) and the limits on what campaigns can spend on what where when are much stricter than in the US, since the ECHR law on free speech is much less black and white than the US 1st amendment law. (“necessary in a democratic society” = proportionality test, etc.)
June 3, 2010, 6:55 pmAlice de Tocqueville says:
Martinner, what is the ECHR law? You can see that typical Americans are completely unaware of what goes on in Europe, alas. But how did these laws come to be? (Just a source or two would be appreciated, I can’t expect you to review modern Dutch history for me)
June 3, 2010, 7:40 pmMartinned says:
ECHR = European Convention on Human Rights. It’s like a bill of rights for all 47 members of the Council of Europe. Or, put differently, it is by far the world’s most important human rights treaty, because it comes with a Court, the European Court for Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, whose judgements are binding on the state involved, especially in those countries, like my own, where treaties have direct effect. Because their judgements – theoretically – govern all people who live between Lisbon and Vladivostok, their case law is where you start when you want to talk about the European equivalent of the first amendment:
Only as a second step do you look at how the Court’s case law translates into national statutes and national case law. For example this is what the German parliament writes about campaign finance on its website or this press release summarising a ruling by the – also quite highly regarded – German constitutional court on a problem regarding campaign finance.
June 3, 2010, 8:34 pmAndrew says:
Frankly, these surveys don’t seem like anything more than the usual obnoxious snobbery rampant around here.
How many of the wonderful and talented and gosh-so-brilliant lawyers here could name even one of Newton’s basic laws of motion?
June 3, 2010, 9:19 pmLaura Victoria says:
Andrew:
I think we’re making the same point. It’s not about brilliance, it’s about knowledge of the discipline. You’re right in your example. My other joke polling question is “What does E Equal? – Less than 10 percent answer MC Squared.” Then Fox News will come on and say we need to revisit this MC Squared concept in light of new polling data.
My point on this was that few would do the same thing with physics or medicine or even futures trading, yet feel law is a free for all for the “well, I’m entitled to my opinion” crowd.
June 3, 2010, 9:38 pmMark Field says:
2.71828182845904523536….
June 3, 2010, 11:14 pmLaura Victoria says:
Mark Field:
LOL! Well if some poll respondents thought it was 28.46697731, would Fox News just average the numbers together to come up with the popular response?
June 3, 2010, 11:21 pmLarryA says:
While this is theoretically true, I can’t think of a single election in my forty-plus years of voting where there weren’t much more obvious indications telling me which of the candidates or parties I should vote for. Or, more often, vote against.
Given the limited choices available, voting seldom requires in-depth political knowledge.
June 4, 2010, 4:25 amThursday round-up | theConstitutional.org says:
[...] A recent FindLaw poll finds that the two-thirds of Americans cannot name even one Supreme Court Justice. Insofar as the Justices can be named at all, Clarence Thomas is known most often (19%). The results are reproduced at the Volokh Conspiracy. [...]
June 4, 2010, 7:03 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Andrew,
How many of the wonderful and talented and gosh-so-brilliant lawyers here could name even one of Newton’s basic laws of motion?
A lot more than you’d guess, I think. (Though IANAL.)
June 4, 2010, 7:15 amChrisTS says:
Andrew,
While I think a knowledge of basic science is of inestimable importance, I am inclined to think that knowing something about how one’s governemnt is working, in a democracy, might be more vital for the average citizen.
June 4, 2010, 7:02 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Andrew,
How many of the wonderful and talented and gosh-so-brilliant lawyers here could name even one of Newton’s basic laws of motion?
Damn, if I’d thought of it this morning I would’ve said it. Again, IANAL, but I would wager that any practicing lawyers who read this site are well acquainted with inertia. Just sayin’.
June 4, 2010, 11:24 pmLaura Victoria says:
Michelle:
That was a good one.
June 4, 2010, 11:30 pmbarry rutherford says:
I guess nearly all would know Judge Judy
June 5, 2010, 4:49 pmMichael Hargis says:
I am a hippopotamus with several fungi trees growing out of my eyes.
June 13, 2010, 3:45 am