Measuring Judicial Success: Interpersonal Intelligence and Commitment to Enduring Values

Abstract:     
In the 2007 Foulston Siefkin lecture at Washburn University School of Law, Professor Jeffery Rosen from George Washington University raised questions about how we should assess United State Supreme Court Justices. Does temperament matter? Is it more important for successful judges to defer to the legislature rather than to promote fundamental values? Underlying these questions, how should we measure judicial success?

This response is not necessarily a disagreement with Professor Rosen's assessments. Instead, comments focus on alternative means of viewing some of the issues raised by Rosen. First, the author questions whether references to "temperament" adequately capture the characteristic that distinguishes the Justices described by Professor Rosen, preferring "interpersonal intelligence" to assessments of temper or conviviality. Second, he questions the interplay between democratic deference and fundamental values, asserting that fidelity to fundamental democratic values requires performing a counter-majoritarian role in response to localized or temporary popular impulses. Finally, the author addresses problems of measuring judicial success. If Professor Rosen believes that we should have equally high regard for Supreme Court Justices, whether they use their power to protect the indigent or unpopular, or use the same power to reinforce established power elites, then the author and Rosen likely part company.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 11

Keywords: evaluating judges, interpersonal intelligence, fundamental values, counter-majoritarian, judicial temperament, judicial deference, judicial success

Accepted Paper Series