“How did the Supreme Court get so boring?” asks Christopher Eisgruber

In yesterday’s Washington Post Outlook, Christopher Eisgruber had a great article on the why the Supreme Court has become such a snooze. I am sure the Supreme Court Justices all have sparkling personalities — that’s not what he’s talking about. He’s questioning how the court came to be so “remarkably monochromatic — a bunch of career jurists, professional, polished and pedigreed.” The current justices have strikingly similar career paths, but this was not always the case as Eisgruber illustrates with historical examples. Click through to read more, but here’s a quick excerpt to get you going:

How did the Supreme Court get so boring?

Sonia Sotomayor probably won’t hear that question when she faces the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. In fact, her nomination has been hailed as a series of exciting firsts: first Latina, first to grow up in a public housing project, even first known Type 1 diabetic.

But she won’t be a first on every count: If confirmed as associate justice to the highest court in the land, Sotomayor will be the ninth federal appellate judge on the nine-member Supreme Court.

And the truth is, federal appeals court judges are not the most charismatic folks in the world. When they give public speeches, for instance, they are partial to discussing stuff like courtroom civility and docket congestion. (Snooze.) And despite Clarence Thomas‘s rags-to-robes story, Antonin Scalia‘s legendary wit and Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s trail-brazing victories as a feminist litigator, the current high court is remarkably monochromatic — a bunch of career jurists, professional, polished and pedigreed.

The bench didn’t used to be this dull.