Good teams, we are told, have good chemistry.

Good chemistry assumes players that get along.  A team with good chemistry works and lives on the same page.  Individuals on those teams sacrifice their own selfish ambition.  Team goals trump personal goals.  Teams with good chemistry act cohesively, with unified purpose and pointed energy.

The United States Supreme Court is not generally described using these terms.  Good chemistry is generally not the concern of our nine justices.  They act and serve as nine independent law firms.

Yet good chemistry, in the most literal of senses, is indeed involved in the make up of this Court and every Court.  Every justice on the United States Supreme Court before being confirmed by the Senate must pass a litmus test.

In chemistry, a litmus test is still used even though it is one of the oldest pH measurements.  The test involves the use of a litmus paper that can when introduced to an outside substance determine acidity.  According to chemists, “acids turn blue litmus paper red; bases turn red litmus paper blue.”  These red and blue litmus tests have taken place in chemistry labs for hundreds of years.

Testing for red or blue justices is almost as old.  When openings on the Court arise sitting presidents seek prospective jurors who agree in principle with the incumbent administration.  That is red Republican presidents look to pack the Court with red conservative leaning jurors.  Likewise blue Democrat presidents look for red leaning liberal jurors.  This kind of litmus test is as old as the Court itself.

Is this the type of chemistry we desire?  Would it not better serve the pursuit of justice if the good chemistry on the Court was likened more to that successful team that worked well together?  Do litmus tests raise serious political and ethical questions regarding the nomination process?

Back in 1937 when Franklin Roosevelt tried to dramatically change the chemical make up of the Supreme Court, he wanted to add six more blues, the American people said no.  Yet when subsequent presidents act no less politically, albeit one justice at a time, no one seems to object.

As the litmus test becomes more and more familiar and as the American people become less and less trustworthy of our legal system is it time for the doctors of our American political system to order up a different test?

Good chemistry may not be a win for us after all.