In the USA, some media men question the lack of military experience of their SC justices. In the PHL, that's the least of our concern.
"x x x.
LOOKING AHEAD
Believe it or not, the federal judiciary does not keep track of how many sitting judges have any military experience. What a pity. Because I believe the president who next gets to appoint a justice -- whether it's President Obama or fellow non-military-veteran Mitt Romney -- ought to appoint a lawyer or a trial judge with wartime military experience, and the closer to the front lines the better. Moreover, the American people deserve to know more about the potential pool of Court appointees before it's time for a president to make a choice.**
In the meantime, you will have to settle for my suggestions. If Mitt Romney wins the presidency, he might consider nominating fellow Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina for a spot on the Supreme Court. Graham, more moderate than most of his constituents, was a member of the Air Force and served in Europe as a military prosecutor. He would be a valuable addition to the Supreme Court, especially if he were to succeed another Republican appointee.
And if the president were to be reelected, there are are a number of military-minded choices he could make. For example, how about Charles Swift, the former military lawyer who showed a combination ofbravery and integrity we haven't seen on the Court for a long, long time? It was Swift, as a military-court-appointed lawyer for terror suspect Salim Hamdan, who took the United States of America to court over the constitutionality of the military tribunals -- and won. He could sit on my Supreme Court any day.
Then there are potential future justices like Frank Whitney. He's a federal trial judge in North Carolina who has for decades been an Army Reservist. Last year, Judge Whitney left his spot on the bench,temporarily, so he could be deployed in Kuwait to preside over military courts-martial. Then there is retired Air Force colonel William Gunn, who is now general counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Or General Mark Martins, now chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay. It's not his fault the tribunals are a mess.
I'm not arguing that the Court -- or the law itself -- should become more militarized. It's already been militarized enough by two successive administrations prosecuting the war on terrorism. And I'm certainly not arguing that the military ought to have more influence on the official life of this country. But the Court's lack of any connection to military service is emblematic of the larger disconnect between our military personnel and the public officials who both send them off to war and then greet them when they return.
This is a dangerous and self-defeating divide, for not only does it make it more likely that more of our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, will be sent into harm's way. It makes it less likely that our soldiers -- and our veterans -- will feel part of a political process that has sent them into combat. In its long history, the Supreme Court has seen some brave, noble former soldiers pass through its gilded doors. If our current war is indeed to be an "endless" one, perhaps it's time for that to happen again.
*My survey of the justices and their military experience is by no means exhaustive so I welcome any information and insight in the comments section. If we can generate enough True Gen about some of these folks, and their service for the country, I will be happy to follow up with another column.
** Again, help. If you know of a sitting federal judge with military experience please let us know below.
x x x."
