This article develops the proposal that U.S. Supreme Court Justices should be selected by sortition. The greatest threat to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court emanates from ever more politicized selection contests under the current system. Removing politics from Supreme Court recruitment is therefore crucial, and sortition is argued to be a suitable vehicle for accomplishing this. The proposal is motivated through a wider discussion of sortition and democracy.
AbertJ. (1972). Since grantsmanship doesn’t work, why not roulette?Saturday Review, 55, 65–66.
2.
AbramsonJ. (2000). We, the Jury: The Jury system and the ideal of democracy. Harvard University Press.
3.
AdeleyeG. (1983). The purpose of dokimasia. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 24, 295–306.
4.
AdlerM. D. (2006). Popular constitutionalism and the rule of recognition: Whose practices ground U.S. law?Northwestern University Law Review, 100, 719–805.
5.
AmarA. R. (1984). Choosing representatives by lottery voting. Yale Law Journal, 93, 1283–1308.
6.
AquinasT. (1269/1963). Liber de sortibus ad dominum Iacobum de Tonengo ( CareyP. B., Trans.). Dominican House of Philosophy. https://dhspriory.org/thomas/Sortibus.htm
7.
AubertV. (1959). Chance in social affairs. Inquiry, 2, 1–24.
8.
BairdV. A.GanglA. (2006). Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media’s framing of Supreme Court procedures on perceptions of fairness. Political Psychology, 27, 597–614.
9.
BarnettA.CartyP. (2017). The Athenian option: Radical reform for the house of lords. Imprint Academic.
10.
BartelsB. L.JohnstonC. D. (2013). On the ideological foundations of Supreme Court legitimacy in the American public. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 184–199.
BodderyS. S.MoyerL. P.YatesJ. (2019). Naming names: The impact of supreme court opinion attribution on citizen assessment of policy outcomes. Law & Society Review, 53, 353–385.
15.
BoyleC. (2010). Lotteries for education: Origins, experiences, lessons. Imprint Academic.
16.
BrisbinR. A. (1996). Slaying the dragon: Segal, Spaeth and the function of law in Supreme Court decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 1004–1017.
17.
BuchsteinH. (2010). Reviving randomness for political rationality: Elements of a theory of aleatory democracy. Constellations, 17, 435–454.
18.
BuchsteinH.HeinM. (2010). Randomizing Europe: The lottery as a political instrument for a reformed European Union. In DelannoiG.DowlenO. (Eds.), Sortition: Theory and practice (pp. 119–155). Imprint Academic.
19.
BuntingW. (2006). Election-by-lot as a judicial selection mechanism. NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, 2, 166–207.
20.
BurgersJ. W. (2015). Are citizens capable of representing themselves?Constellations, 22, 13–30.
21.
BurnheimJ. (2006). Is democracy possible? The alternative to electoral democracy. Sydney University Press.
22.
CallenbachE.PhillipsM.SutherlandK. (2008). A people’s parliament-a citizen legislature. Imprint Academic.
23.
ChildressJ. F. (1970). Who shall live when not all can live?Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 53, 339–355.
24.
ChristensonD. P.GlickD. M. (2015). Chief Justice Roberts’s health care decision disrobed: The microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 403–418.
25.
ClawsonR. A.KeglerE. R.WaltenburgE. N. (2001). The legitimacy-conferring authority of the U.S. Supreme Court: An experimental design. American Politics Research, 29, 566–591.
26.
de CoulangesF. (1879). Sur le tirage au sort appliqué a la nomination des archontes Athéniens [On sortition as applied to the nomination of Athenian archonts]. Nouvelle revue historique de droit français et étranger, 2, 613–643.
27.
de CoulangesF. (1894). La cité antique (Vol. 3) [The ancient city]. Flammarion.
28.
DavisH.BurgesG. (Trans.). (1901). The republic; The statesman of Plato. M. Walter Dunne.
29.
DelannoiG.DowlenO. (Eds.). (2010). Sortition: Theory and practice. Imprint Academic.
30.
DowS. (1939). Aristotle, the kleroteria, and the courts. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 50, 1–34.
31.
DowlenO. (2009). Sorting out sortition: A perspective on the random selection of political officers. Political Studies, 57, 298–315.
32.
DowlenO. (2010). Sortition and liberal democracy: Finding a way forward. In DelannoiG.DowlenO. (Eds.), Sortition: Theory and practice (pp. 53–68). Imprint Academic.
33.
DowlenO. (2017). The political potential of sortition: A study of the random selection of citizens for public office. Imprint Academic.
34.
DuxburyN. (1999). Random justice: On lotteries and legal decision-making. Clarendon Press.
35.
EastonD. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. Wiley.
36.
EckhoffT. (1989). Lotteries in allocative situations. Social Science Information, 28, 5–22.
ElsterJ. (1988). Custody by the toss of a coin?Social Science Information, 27, 517–535.
39.
ElsterJ. (1989). Solomonic judgements: Studies in the limitation of rationality. Cambridge University Press.
40.
EpsteinL.KnightJ. (1998). The choices justices make. CQ Press.
41.
FishkinJ. S. (1988). The case for a national caucus. The Atlantic Monthly, 262, 16–18.
42.
FriedmanB. (2009). The will of the people: How public opinion has influenced the Supreme Court and shaped the meaning of the Constitution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
43.
FukuraiH.ButlerE. W.KroothR. (1991a). Cross-sectional jury representation or systematic jury representation? Simple random and cluster sampling strategies in jury selection. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 31–48.
44.
FukuraiH.ButlerE. W.KroothR. (1991b). Where did Black jurors go? A theoretical synthesis of racial disenfranchisement in the jury system and jury selection. Journal of Black Studies, 22, 196–215.
45.
GatakerT. (1627/2008). The nature and uses of lotteries: A historical and theological treatise. Imprint Academic.
GibsonJ. L. (1989). Understandings of justice: Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and political tolerance. Law & Society Review, 23, 469–496.
48.
GibsonJ. L. (1991). Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and compliance with Supreme Court decisions: A question of causality. Law & Society Review, 25, 631–635.
49.
GibsonJ. L. (2007). The legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a polarized polity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 507–538.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A. (2011). Has legal realism damaged the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?Law & Society Review, 45, 195–219.
52.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A.SpenceL. K. (2003a). Measuring attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 354–367.
53.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A.SpenceL. K. (2003b). The Supreme Court and the U.S. presidential election of 2000: Wounds, self-inflicted or otherwise?British Journal of Political Science, 33, 535–556.
54.
GibsonJ. L.LodgeM.WoodsonB. (2014). Losing, but accepting: Legitimacy, positivity theory, and the symbols of judicial authority. Law & Society Review, 48, 837–866.
55.
GibsonJ. L.NelsonM. J. (2017). Reconsidering positivity theory: What roles do politicization, ideological disagreement, and legal realism play in shaping U.S. Supreme Court Legitimacy?Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 14, 592–617.
56.
GoodwinB. (1992). Justice by lottery. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
57.
GoodwinB. (2010). Lotteries, markets and fair competition. In DelannoiG.DowlenO. (Eds.), Sortition: Theory and practice (pp. 105–118). Imprint Academic.
58.
HabermasJ. (1973). Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus [Problems of legitimation in late capitalism]. Suhrkamp.
59.
HansenM. H. (1999). The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes: Structure, principles, and ideology (CrookJ. A., Trans.). University of Oklahoma Press.
60.
HardinG. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.
61.
HeadlamJ. W. (1933). Election by lot at Athens. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1891)
62.
HofsteeW. K. B. (1990). Allocation by lot: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Social Science Information, 29, 745–763.
63.
JacquetV. (2019). The role and the future of deliberative mini-publics: A citizen perspective. Political Studies, 67, 639–657.
64.
JowettB. (Trans.). (1885). The politics of Aristotle (Vol. 1). Clarendon Press.
65.
KochE. (1903). Δοκιμασία [Dokimasia]. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft[Pauly's real encyclopedia of classical antiquity], V, 1268–1273.
66.
KramerL. D. (2004a). The people themselves: Popular constitutionalism and judicial review. Oxford University Press.
67.
KramerL. D. (2004b). Popular constitutionalism, circa 2004. California Law Review, 92, 959–1011.
LockeJ. (1980). Second treatise of government: Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government (MacphersonC. B., Ed.). Hackett. (Original work published1689)
75.
MaltzmanF.SpriggsJ.WahlbeckP. J. (2000). Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. Cambridge University Press.
76.
ManinB. (1997). The principles of representative government. Cambridge University Press.
77.
MansbridgeJ. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.”The Journal of Politics, 61, 628–657.
78.
MansbridgeJ. (2011). Clarifying the concept of representation. American Political Science Review, 105, 621–630.
79.
MartinB. (1990). Democracy without elections. Social Alternatives, 8, 13–18.
MillsC. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.
82.
Montesquieude B.[de Secondat, Charles]. (1899). The spirit of laws ( NugentT., Trans.). Colonial Press. (Original work published 1748)
83.
MulganR. G. (1984). Lot as a democratic device of selection. The Review of Politics, 46, 539–560.
84.
NashJ. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36, 48–49.
85.
NashJ. F. (1951). Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 54, 286–295.
86.
O'LearyK. (2006). Saving democracy: A plan for real representation in America. Stanford University Press.
87.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press.
88.
PosnerR. A. (2008). How judges think. Harvard University Press.
89.
PoundR. (1908). Mechanical jurisprudence. Columbia Law Review, 8, 605–623.
90.
PreßR. (1933). Das Ordal im alten Israel [The ordeal in ancient Israel]. II. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 51, 227–255.
91.
RawlsJ. (1971). A theory of justice. Belknap Press.
92.
RousseauJ. J. (1913). The social contract & discourses ( ColeG. D. H., Trans.). J. M. Dent. (Original work published 1762)
93.
SchmidtC. W. (2011). Popular constitutionalism on the right: Lessons from the tea party. Denver University Law Review, 88, 523–557.
94.
SchultzeW. (1896). Deutsche Geschichte von der Urzeit bis zu den Karolingern(Vol. 2) [German history from the origins to the Carolingians]. J. G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger.
95.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. Cambridge University Press.
96.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge University Press.
SheldonC. H. (1970). The Supreme Court: Politicians in robes. Glencoe Press.
99.
SilvermanW. A.ChalmersI. (2001). Casting and drawing lots: A time honoured way of dealing with uncertainty and ensuring fairness. British Medical Journal, 323, 1467–1468.
100.
SintomerY. (2010a). Random selection and deliberative democracy. In DelannoiG.DowlenO. (Eds.), Sortition: Theory and practice (pp. 31–51). Imprint Academic.
101.
SintomerY. (2010b). Random selection, republican self-government, and deliberative democracy. Constellations, 17, 472–487.
102.
StoneP. (2010). Three arguments for lotteries. Social Science Information, 49, 147–163.
103.
StoneP. (2011). The luck of the draw: The role of lotteries in decision making. Oxford University Press.
TushnetM. V. (1999). Taking the Constitution away from the courts. Princeton University Press.
109.
TushnetM. V. (2006). Popular constitutionalism as political law. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 81, 991–1006.
110.
TylerT. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.
111.
TylorE. B. (1873). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, language, art, and custom (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). John Murray.
112.
UphoffN. (1989). Distinguishing power, authority & legitimacy: Taking Max Weber at his word by using resources-exchange analysis. Polity, 22(2), 295–322.
113.
van ReybrouckD. (2016). Against elections: The case for democracy. The Bodley Head.
114.
VergneA. (2010). A brief survey of the literature of sortition. In DelannoiG.DowlenO. (Eds.), Sortition: Theory and practice (pp. 69–87). Imprint Academic.
115.
WeberM. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization ( ParsonsT.HendersonA. M., Trans.). Free Press.
116.
WolfleD. (1970). Chance, or human judgment. Science, 167, 1201.
117.
ZeckhauserR. (1969). Majority rule with lotteries on alternatives. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83, 696–703.
