We need an economist on the Supreme Court

Indeed, the almost entirely unreported but vital issue regarding the nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stephens is whether he or she is economically literate, or rather, expert. It is not whether that person is left-liberal or left-center, pro-life or pro-choice, et cetera, yawn, et cetera. Face it, most Justices know almost nothing about economics beyond an Econ 101 class they had as a college freshman three, four, five decades ago.

And these are the people who decide what the commerce clause means … the ones who made it illegal for a man to grow his own tomatoes without federal approval? Today we enjoy a Court that said it was peachy keen for the federal government to take ownership of General Motors on behalf of taxpayers who wouldn’t touch GM stock of their own free will. To that, we can all say: “Thanks for less than nothing.”

Isn’t it about time we see an economist on the Supreme Court? There are nine jusices, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a law degree is a qualification. Yet, what we have now is a monopoly of lawyers on the Court. A monopoly.