The Constitution is Exactly Like a Strike Zone

It seems that Justice Alito agrees with Chief Justice Roberts that Supreme Court Justices are exactly like umpires, and the Constitution is exactly like a strike zone. This may sound overly simplistic, but the two newest members of the Supreme Court are right. Let us compare the strike zone to the Constitution, and the similarities will become crystal clear.

The strike zone is a conceptual rectangular area defined by four concrete, identifiable points in space. The Constitution is a legal document defined by words, many of which were written hundreds of years ago. Like points in space, words are not subject to interpretation, and it is impossible for reasonable minds to differ as to what they mean.

Like the Constitution, the strike zone is relatively easy to implement. This is why professional umpires require only five weeks of training before they can start calling balls and strikes. Similarly, practically anyone can become a federal judge after three short years in law school, just a few decades of grueling legal practice, and a perfunctory nomination and confirmation process involving only two out of three branches of the federal government.

Because the strike zone is so straightforward, there is very little debate about it among the baseball community. Everyone basically agrees that, if a pitch is within the clearly defined strike zone, it's a strike, and otherwise it's a ball. Similarly, hardly anyone has anything to say about the Constitution. Everyone is basically on the same page (no pun intended) as to what the Constitution provides for and requires, and anyone who disagrees with the nation's practically unanimous originalist majority is an idiot.

Finally, Chief Justice Roberts was correct that people don't go to baseball games to watch the umpire. It follows a fortiori that very few people would be interested in seeing a speech given by an umpire, let alone a prime time network television special devoted entirely to an umpire. This is why Supreme Court Justices hardly ever give speeches or go on TV. It's because nobody's interested in what they have to say, because their job is so simple and unremarkable.

So you see, when Supreme Court Justices downplay the importance of a vibrant federal judiciary by comparing themselves to officials in a ballgame, it only sounds like total crap. It's really a perfectly sound approach to the role of judges which is in no way a mask for a maniacal conservative agenda.