My Wife The Anti-Federalist

My wife had an interesting comment on the Supreme Court yesterday. She said that she approves of the Court being the ultimate arbiter of legislation, because of its supreme competence. She said she can tell by watching Roberts that he is a competent man. I told her that his nomination probably means that the Court will overturn decisions that have struck down legislation from the states, returning the decision-making process to the states' Supreme Courts on important issues. She said she would not want this to happen. I then asked her if she would rather have a Court that overrides the decisions of Minnesota, giving decisions she did not agree with, rather than a court that defers to Minnesota, that would give decisions that she would agree with. She said she would rather have a court that decided to strike Minnesota decisions down if they thought it necessary. She said the Minnesota Supreme Court is less capable of making competent decisions than the national Court, because the Governor has only the state's talent pool to draw on, whereas the President has the national talent pool. She is especially afraid of the decisions that will come from states that are less well-educated than Minnesota. The national Court is guaranteed to be well-educated. This was an argument I had not heard before, an argument from competence vs. an argument from ideology (x supports the High Court making decisions because x agrees with the decisions they have made). She would probably also say she trusts the Supreme Court more than the other branches of government, because of their high level of education. I suppose this is the polar opposite of those who cry judicial activism when the Court over-rules the states.