What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close

The Anxiety of the Supreme Court Justice

June 22, 2013, 12:14 PM
Supreme_court

Put yourself in the sensible black shoes of one of our nine Supreme Court justices for a moment. Next week, you will hand down decisions on four huge cases concerning the Voting Rights Act, racial preferences in higher education and same-sex marriage. No matter how you rule, you will make a lot people very angry. You will establish a new constitutional framework for public debate about all of these questions. Your decisions will have untold effects on the way elections are conducted, on the demographics of college classrooms and on the very nature of marriage and family. Next week, you will change America.

As exciting as the power of jurisprudence is, it has got to make you anxious. Your reasoning will be parsed, your motivations questioned. You will be reviled by many. You may even wonder if you’ve made a mistake as the decisions are being released  especially if you are Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court centrist on many hot-button issues.

Justice Kennedy betrayed a bit of this jurisprudential anxiety in the oral argument of a wrenchingly difficult case involving adoption and Native Americans  yet another toughie to be decided in the coming days. (Here is my analysis of the case at the Economist.) Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl asks whether Veronica, a three-year-old girl with Cherokee blood, belongs with the non-Native American couple who adopted her at birth and raised her for 27 months, or with her biological father who claimed her in January 2012 under a provision of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Here is Justice Kennedy wringing his hands:

Well, these -- these considerations are why domestic relations pose the hardest problems for judges. Our domestic relations judges all by themselves every day have these difficult problems. If we could appoint King Solomon, who was the first domestic relations judge, as special master, we could do it. But we can't do it.

You’ll recall King Solomon’s solution to a custody dispute between two women from 1 Kings, chapter 3:

24 And the king said: 'Fetch me a sword.' And they brought a sword before the king.

25 And the king said: 'Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.'

26 Then spoke the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her heart yearned upon her son, and she said: 'Oh, my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it.' But the other said: 'It shall be neither mine nor thine; divide it.'

27 Then the king answered and said: 'Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof.'

In the oral argument, Justice Sotomayor seemed more certain about how the case should be resolved than did Justice Kennedy (she’s likely to rule for the biological father), but she too let some anxiety off her chest:

“I don’t want to be that judge, by the way.”

 

The Anxiety of the Supreme ...

Newsletter: Share: