Opinion: The lack of credentials needed to be on the Supreme Court is astounding given their influence. It also creates a disregard for the people who have lost their once given rights.
———-

When I first set my sights on becoming a lawyer, the ultimate goal was to become a Supreme Court justice — I essentially wanted to become the next Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. However, after the recent slew of decisions made by the conservative majority, this goal is fading away.

It really isn’t that difficult to become a Supreme Court justice though. There are no restrictions or requirements laid out in the Constitution as there are for state representatives or the president. You don’t even have to have gone to law school or have practiced law; it’s just the precedent that all justices have had some sort of formal education. The last justice who had not attended law school, or even graduated high school, was James F. Byrnes in 1941.

Truly, the only real requirements are that you’re appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. So, if the president really likes you, and they have the Senate behind them, there’s nothing anybody else can do to stop you from becoming a Supreme Court justice and serving for life. 

This is an issue not necessarily with the Supreme Court but rather the polarization of political parties in presidential elections. For example, former President Donald Trump’s policies in office were disagreeable but for the most part it was assumed that with the end of his presidency came the end of his political control. However, the three justices that he nominated became his stand-ins, sharing similar political ideologies and changing the majority-to-minority balance of the Supreme Court.

The aftermath of Trump’s presidency continues to affect the country and threatens everyones rights . Trump should not have been given the ability to change the court to the extent that he did.

At the end of former President Barack Obama’s term in 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to appoint Garland and stated that the next president should be the one to nominate a justice.
On the contrary, at the end of Trump’s term when Ginsburg died, Trump nominated Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Even though Trump had less time in office than Obama did when he nominated Barrett, the Senate rushed to confirm her. 

Further, the opinions of nine people, regardless if they align with any percentage of the population, are what dictate people’s freedoms. Looking at the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade, 61% of people believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases according to Pew Research Center. Even though a large percentage of people support abortion rights, six unelected people don’t and gave the decision up to the state representatives who are eager to ban it.

I understand that abortion is not directly stated in the Constitution; neither is marriage equality, Miranda Rights, climate change or a majority of the issues within the cases that the Supreme Court takes on. But to attempt to reverse decades worth of progress in terms of individual freedoms serves no benefit but to cause further political divisions and public outlash.

For the Supreme Court and the states to not respect anyone’s existence, they must expect resistance.

If all it takes is nine people’s opinions to monopolize the most power in the country — regardless of education, age, religion, etc. — I don’t see why eight of my friends and I can’t be Supreme Court justices. Surely we’d do a better job than those currently appointed.