It’s 2024, and after 25 years in my professional career I’ve reached that point in my life where I want meaningful work — a job that affords me a paycheck, gives me the summer off and, most importantly, I get to keep the position for life or until I can grift, oops, I mean earn enough money to retire to a non-extradition country.
Yes, I want to become a Supreme Court justice.
I’ve decided I need to bypass the Indiana state bench and go right for the Wild West honeypot justice position situated at the intersection of special interest, crazy and jurisprudence, Washington D.C.
I’ve seen the job description. I don’t have to be a lawyer, and, quite frankly, I know I could take several of the current members of the court in an arm-wrestling ethics contest.
I am absolutely the perfect candidate. So much more normal than most of the gang of nine on the bench right now.
Do these arbiters of law have a clue of the differences between the precedence of law, self-interest and common sense? I think not.
The country really needs me as the cool justice who has the guts to call out crazy and deny idiocy, normalize truth, justice and (with absolutely no allegiance to either the Armageddon politics of the right or left) the American way.
I know, I know, I must wait until someone retires or dies (yeah, that whole lifetime appointment is a hard stop now). But if I list my qualifications, maybe the president and Senate will take notice and consider.
I’m not a closeted alcoholic, I’ve never been accused of harassing anyone or taking a bribe. I can be fair and bipartisan (think Solomon and the two mom’s kind of attitude). I am an excellent listener and love asking pithy, soul-crushing questions to everyone (think are you smarter than a fifth grader vibe).
And, most importantly, I’m a woman (ok, not Black, Hispanic or LGBTQ but, having struggled with infertility, miscarriages and given birth, my firsthand experiences surely qualifies me to have insight on some of the most divisive issues facing our country since the overturning of Roe v. Wade).
Child care, IVF, birth control, abortion and reproductive rights are the tsunami cases bearing down on the court. Nobody seems to be willing to set aside personal opinions and religious beliefs as to what is or is not acceptable regarding birth control.
Seriously, wake up, guys: 100% yea or 100% nay is never ever going to fly with state oversight vs. national oversight as the battleground.
This looming discussion and decisions require cooler heads than the ones currently taking meetings and having speaking engagements with fringe groups whose love language is harassment, firebombing and doxing.
Don’t even get me started on immunity. Mel Brooks may have said, “It’s good to be the king,” but last I checked, we haven’t had one of those since the 1700s. And unless we rewrite the Constitution, it shouldn’t even be on the docket.
On the issue of ethics (which currently appear to be discretionary), I believe, if confirmed, I could be the change or at the very least the start of bringing back impartially.
Recusals/conflicts of interest — while presently woefully underutilized for anyone espousing originalism — need to become the rule, not the exception.
Seriously, how could anyone with a law degree and just a passing familiarity with the tax code not understand that nondisclosure of a gifts and trips and tuition and an RV worth more than my home constitutes income and, at the very least, rises to the level of the appearance of impropriety, triggering an immediate stepping aside from ruling on any decisions that are even remotely connected to the gift giver?
I can be the transformation.
I have a passion to tell everyone how wrong they are, despite any alternative facts to the contrary. I believe my unparalleled life experience having not purchased firearms while under the influence of questionable substances, never having had a billionaire friend, not having a flagpole, having read more than three books, having never declared bankruptcy or been convicted of a felony is of noteworthy consideration.
Most importantly, I am more than willing (dare I say excited) to throw my husband under the bus for anything that might make me look stupid or, at best, culpable.
I stand under the banner of an alternative universe with the ability to vet and confirm candidates without vicious partisan interference. I support a pledge by everyone elected to the bench to adhere to a strong, enforceable code of ethics. I’d like to see the ability to enforce recusal for a justice for flagrant predisposition to one side or the other in an argument as a path forward.
This is how our forefathers envisioned the checks and balances of our democracy’s highest court.
I will go so far as to suggest that, rather than a life appointment, a mandatory retirement after 20 to 25 years of service should be the limit, allowing for meaningful decisions and yet creating the ability for fresh eyes, hearts and minds to confront and render decisions critical to the well-being of our citizens.
I guess the real questions we need to discuss and address are about the accountability of the current bench, their willingness to delay decisions to influence/impact the election, personal biases influencing decisions, their level of honesty, and the blatant collusion for financial gain.
With me making decisions on the bench, what you see is what you get with skepticism of the extreme, openness to both sides of an argument and the knowledge that the letter of the law isn’t always the same as the intent of the law.
I also pledge to fly coach and not private.
George Orwell’s famous “Animal Farm” quote — “all animals are equal, only some animals are more equal than others” — seems to be the attitude of today’s court.
They would be wise to remember that to have absolute job security, no oversight and no blowback (except the media, and who listens to them these days) creates the kind of power that corrupts absolutely.
Eileen Goltz of Fort Wayne is a freelance writer, cookbook author, syndicated food columnist and occasional humorist.
