“I’m Not a Biologist”: A Hayekian Perspective on the Judge’s Implementation of Knowledge and the Umpire Analogy

Author: Mark Edward Blankenship Jr.

While the renowned metaphor of judges as umpires has continued to hold relevancy, it has continued to face scrutiny in recent years.   Moreover, the metes and bounds of judges are still arguably ambiguous to this very day.  As Justice Kagan put it, “because it wrongly implies that high-court judging ‘is a kind of robotic enterprise . . . that everything is clear cut.’”    This legal juxtaposition raises immense concerns about (a) the degree of knowledge necessary to play by the rules in a technologically advancing society, and (b) the roles and expectations of our justice system, especially within the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which for years has become labeled as “anti-science.”   How can justices improve in applying the rules?  How does one effectively interpret the rules and laws of a nation for the good of the people when society falls into a state of educational regression?   Is there a way that SCOTUS can make better informed decisions?  Overall, knowledge of the rules alone would not be enough.

Read More.