Missouri’s most notable claim-to-fame in modern legal philosophy is often overlooked.
The state’s constitutionally guaranteed system of merit-based judicial selection — the “Missouri Plan,” as it’s often called — marked a seismic shift in the process of court appointment, one that swept the nation in a grand revision of how we populate many of our appellate and high courts.
By forgoing popular alternatives of direct election and nomination-confirmation of state judges, Missouri ushered in a new “nonpartisan” era of judicial selection.
After the Plan’s initial adoption in the mid-1900s, dozens of states followed, creating merit-based systems of their own. Newly democratic nations across Europe and South America drew inspiration from the Plan in writing their own constitutions, as did even a few established democracies during historic reformation votes.
And Missouri started it all.
What follows is a brief overview of the philosophy and origins of the Missouri Plan, a lightly edited excerpt taken from my undergraduate thesis work at the University of Missouri.
After a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, Congressional Republicans have exercised the “nuclear option,” dismantling the requirement of a 60-vote cloture movement before voting on Supreme Court nominees. Gorsuch can be confirmed with a mere 51 supporting senators, an up-or-down vote scheduled for Friday.
Scott, a Republican, referred to an opinion column in the Sentinel as “fake news” in separate posts on Facebook and Twitter earlier this month. In defense, the paper’s publisher is considering a defamation suit, although he has yet to pursue any concrete legal action.
The story has earned national attention, perhaps due to the current political climate—the Trump administration has made it a point to assail the national news media, describing such outlets as “the enemy of the American people.”
On Thursday, Britain voted to leave the European Union, a decision that sent shockwaves through the worldwide economic market – an escape nicknamed “Brexit” by political commentators.
By this public referendum, the country renounced the centralized common marketplace of the EU in favor of increased economic and political autonomy. This foreseeably comes at the expense of the British pound’s short-term valuation against foreign currencies, as investors eschew the country’s uncertain financial future in favor of more secure denominations.
In 1950, American science writer Isaac Asimov penned The Evitable Conflict, a short story that serves as climax for his famous I, Robot collection.
In the future envisioned by Asimov, the world of the mid-21st century has been divided into four governing regions composing a single, globalized state. Each region contains an artificial intelligence called a Machine, to which economic data is given and policy recommendations are returned. In exchange for this increased centralization and outsourcing of political decision-making, humanity has seen an unprecedented degree of peace and prosperity, with war, famine and large-scale conflicts permanently eliminated.
In the story, Asimov presents a future in which issues once seen as inevitable become avoidable through economic co-operation.
However, it is not a future consciously chosen by the human race. In effect, the world had no choice. As the Machines became more and more complex, they began to create an illusion of autonomy to preserve what they calculated as the course preserving the greatest good for all of humanity. It may be the path humanity would have chosen anyway, hints Asimov, but the particular implementation was never really up for consideration.
In The Evitable Conflict, the Machines are fictional stand-ins for modern political structures and economic policies. Now, the fate of nations is beholden to the whims of democratic collectives and stock market trends, largely uncontrollable global forces arising as the true masters of human destiny.
If Asimov proves correct, Brexit is either a fluke or temporary set-back in the world’s inevitable path toward increasing economic and political centralization, the ultimate fate of a technologically advanced society growing closer and closer together with every coming day.
If Asimov is wrong, then individual people may have much broader control over what becomes of their lives than some social scientists might suggest. Brexit may stand as the clearest evidence in the error of Asimovian-style thinking and the perceived inevitability of continued trends in global centralization.
Only time will tell what comes next. Britain may leave, but uncertainty remains.
“The Evitable Conflict” and other short stories are available in Isaac Asimov’s “I, Robot,” for sale in paperback, audio and digital download here.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Information for this story was gathered from interviews conducted throughout the Missouri General Assembly’s 2016 legislative session, which ran from January to mid-May.
JEFFERSON CITY — Zachary Wyatt-Gomez, 31, a former Missouri representative and openly gay Republican, is an ideological harbinger—a man whose own life story mirrors the morphing philosophy of his seemingly fractured party.
But Wyatt’s experience also highlights a growing divide within the GOP, an uneasy coalition straining to establish some form of consensus between its business-minded and socially conservative wings.
It’s a divide that served as tinder for this spring’s religious liberty showdown in the Missouri General Assembly.
Senate Joint Resolution 39, a Republican-sponsored religious liberty constitutional amendment, was first presented as a way to protect the socially conservative beliefs and practices of ordinary citizens from overbearing government oversight.
Opponents argued the resolution would legalize discrimination.
Specifically, SJR 39 would have allowed some wedding-related businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples based on a “sincere religious belief.”