![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cosFor the first time ever, a silly OkCupid quiz result on my LJ:
The reason I post it here is to say: Close, but not quite. I'm pleased, certainly, that of the current court, it picked Ginsburg for me. She's my current favorite. But this quiz would've done much better with a larger repertoire than just the current court, and then it might've sussed out who I really am: William Brennan.
I started reading opinions of the court in the 1990s, and two Justices in particular struck me, again and again, in a positive and enriching way: Marshall and Brennan.
Thurgood Marshall was the one who showed me new ways of thinking. He was the one whose votes sometimes made me think "wait what?!?!" and then, as I read what he wrote, start to understand how he saw the case, and why it made sense.
Brennan was different. Brennan was the one whose vote I knew before I had to look it up, every time, because I simply had to ask myself, "how would I wish this case decided?" I'd read his opinions for a different reason: they made me think "Yes, this!" long before LiveJournal :) I'd look at the deep examinations of opinions that were essentially my own, and see where they led in greater depth. I'd silently cheer triumphantly, in my head, to see a brilliant new way of explaining some belief of mine, that I'd never have thought of.
With Brennan on the court, I felt like I had a personal representative, like I was on the court without having to do the work.
P.S. Which Justice does this quiz pick for you?
Your result for Which Supreme Court Justice Are You Test...
You are Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
... here's the photo and text from the quiz ...The reason I post it here is to say: Close, but not quite. I'm pleased, certainly, that of the current court, it picked Ginsburg for me. She's my current favorite. But this quiz would've done much better with a larger repertoire than just the current court, and then it might've sussed out who I really am: William Brennan.
I started reading opinions of the court in the 1990s, and two Justices in particular struck me, again and again, in a positive and enriching way: Marshall and Brennan.
Thurgood Marshall was the one who showed me new ways of thinking. He was the one whose votes sometimes made me think "wait what?!?!" and then, as I read what he wrote, start to understand how he saw the case, and why it made sense.
Brennan was different. Brennan was the one whose vote I knew before I had to look it up, every time, because I simply had to ask myself, "how would I wish this case decided?" I'd read his opinions for a different reason: they made me think "Yes, this!" long before LiveJournal :) I'd look at the deep examinations of opinions that were essentially my own, and see where they led in greater depth. I'd silently cheer triumphantly, in my head, to see a brilliant new way of explaining some belief of mine, that I'd never have thought of.
With Brennan on the court, I felt like I had a personal representative, like I was on the court without having to do the work.
P.S. Which Justice does this quiz pick for you?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
I got Breyer, at 71%, with Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, and Ginsburg all in the 60s. Which goes to show how often, were I on the court, my understanding of what the Constitution allows would differ from what I think is good policy. I would surely rather have Ginsburg's or Stevens' point of view implemented by the other branches of the government.