Eugene Fidell, a military-law expert, has an intriguing suggestion, that a Supreme Court justice with military experience might be able to look at claims of executive power with a more clear and critical eye:
Plainly, it would be as improper for a Justice with substantial military experience to assume the mantle of a specialized court as it would be for a trial judge to rely on personal knowledge of surgery when deciding a medical malpractice case. Still, it seems fair to suggest that having veterans on the Court can enrich the discussion and hold out the promise of careful scrutiny of government claims that might otherwise be embraced uncritically. Experience since 9/11 teaches that the Justices are not reluctant to test and, when appropriate, reject government claims sounding in military or national security matters.
I don't have much to add, I just think it's an interesting idea. For much of the past eight years, the executive branch was able to get away with just about anything under the rubric of national security, but military lawyers were among the most vocal critics of the military commissions process and "enhanced interrogation." It would be good to have a person on the SCOTUS who would be less susceptible to that kind of bullying.
-- A. Serwer
