I am writing to apply for the position of Supreme Court Justice. I realize that my name is not already on the short list, but I believe my qualifications will convince you that it should be.
For starters, I am a naturally rational person. I do not often let my judgement get blurred by emotion. As evidence of this, I have never been at fault in an automobile accident due to emotional stress. (I hear that driving while upset is bound to cause a wreck.) Adding to my natural rationality, I took a class in symbolic logic while in high school. This was a college class, I was the only high school student, and yet I got the highest grade. I think that makes me pretty logical, don't you? Well, add to that my scientific training (see my attached CV), and you've got a rational, logical, methodical problem-solver. (Or a heartless shrew, depending on who you ask.)
Demographically, I am perfect for the job. You want to round out the court? I'm a left-wing liberal atheist woman scientist without a law degree. You'd certainly get props for thinking outside the box. (And choosing me might help dispel your reputation for hiring from within. Yes, I'm talking about Geithner. But it could have been a lot of people, couldn't it?) True, I am white, but I'm from Southern California, so that makes me 1/16th Mexican, doesn't it? Si? No? I may be young for the court, but believe me, that works in your favor. An online quiz I took recently estimated that I would live at least to age 80, which would give me 50 long years of judicial decisions. Talk about a presidential legacy! Imagine if any of Kennedy's appointments were still on the bench: we'd probably recognize that corporations aren't people.
You're probably thinking, "Alright, she'd be a prudent jurist and a strategic appointment, but would she vote my way?" To answer that, I have to say, "Probably not." I'm not going to let my decisions be swayed by any president, not even the one who appoints me. I can tell you right now that I favor the rights of the individual as long as they don't infringe on the rights of another. I am socially libertarian (get your hands off my rights!), economically democratic (safety nets and regulations, please!), and militarily null (whatever happened to diplomacy?), so good luck figuring out how I'm going to vote.
More importantly, I would be pleased to participate in a scholarly discussion of the merits of an argument. What is the real issue at hand? What alternative solutions are there to this situation? How does this case fit into the existing laws and precedents? And, of course, what's the difference between a cell phone and a pager? I would undoubtedly bring a fresh perspective to the group, having used a computer AND the internet. But I wouldn't be too radical. (I don't have an iPhone.)
True, my knowledge of the law is lacking. But that's what clerks are for, right? My only experience as a jurist is that one time I almost got picked to serve jury duty, but I got out of it because I had to defend my thesis. That just shows I have my priorities straight. I have no experience in Constitutional law, but I have a copy of the constitution, and I promise to read up on it while I wait for your phone call.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to visiting the white house for a personal chat.