> My expectation is that the judges you know are not Supreme Court Justices. This is true, but one is federal. And substantially younger than most of the SCOTU

> My expectation is that the judges you know are not Supreme Court Justices. This is true, but one is federal. And substantially younger than most of the SCOTUS justices. He doesn't know how to use a web browser. Which, to be honest, was actually unbelievable to me, since even the older clients at the homeless shelter I volunteer with know how to use a web browser. How do you even function in today's world without this knowledge? I guess a job for life and a rotating staff of ambitious brown nosers who are willing to google things for you is the answer. Of course judges don't need to be experts on everything. But you seem to misunderstand my critique of the bench. This isn't akin to "can't write a novel" or "never read Shakespeare"; it's more akin to "actually functionally illiterate in anything outside of law and some subset of the humanities". You might not care that a judge hasn't read this or that book, or never wrote a short story, for example. But if your judge didn't know how to read?! You might have some serious concerns. That's the state of affairs with respect to numeracy and technology. For that reason, the rest of your post seems like fairly non-responsive to my primary concern. In particular, I don't doubt the raw capability or intelligence of SCOTUS justices (or other judges). Becoming a federal judge is incredibly difficult; these are bright and highly motivated people. But I do think many judges lack the basic numeracy and technical literacy required to know what they don't know, or learn what they need to learn. Again, the baseline here is less like "never written code" and like "doesn't know how to use Chrome". A secondary concern is a lack of humility, which is of course a precondition for learning. Combined with a sort of general innumeracy among the elite set. I can give some examples of opinions that put this combination on display.