Twenty years. It’s been roughly two decades since "The Supremes" first aired during the fifth season of The West Wing, and honestly, nothing else on television has even come close to touching it. Most political dramas today feel like they’re shouting at you or, worse, trying to lecture you on the "right" way to think. But this episode? It was different. It didn't just show a political win; it showed a functional, albeit chaotic, intellectual universe where people actually liked each other despite wanting to dismantle each other’s legal philosophies.
You remember the premise, right? Chief Justice Owen Brady dies, leaving a massive hole on the Supreme Court. The Bartlet administration, perpetually stuck in the mud of a Republican-controlled Congress, is terrified of a confirmation battle they can't win. They want a safe, moderate pick. They want E. Bradford Shelton—the "center of the center." He’s a guy who is so bland he’s basically beige paint in a robe.
But then Josh Lyman, in one of those "lightning in a bottle" moments that Aaron Sorkin’s successors actually managed to nail, gets a wild idea. Instead of one moderate, why not two giants? One from the far left, one from the far right.
It was brilliant. It was also completely insane.
The Evelyn Baker Lang Factor
Glenn Close as Evelyn Baker Lang is arguably one of the best guest-starring roles in the history of the medium. She wasn’t just "the liberal choice." She was sharp, funny, and deeply human. When she sits in that room with the President and Josh, she isn't groveling for the job. She’s explaining the law.
There’s this specific moment—you know the one—where she talks about the right to privacy. She isn't just reciting a stump speech. She’s articulating a judicial philosophy that feels lived-in. Lang was modeled loosely on the intellectual rigors of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but with a specific kind of West Wing spark that made her feel like she could actually exist in a world where the West Wing was the center of the universe.
The writers, Eli Attie and Kevin Falls, did something really clever here. They didn't make her a saint. They made her a person who had a "secret"—an old abortion she’d had years prior. In any other show, this would be a "scandal" that takes up forty minutes of screen time. Here? It’s a hurdle to be cleared through smart maneuvering. It showed that the show understood the difference between a political liability and a moral one.
🔗 Read more: Jack Blocker American Idol Journey: What Most People Get Wrong
Christopher Mulready and the Beauty of Dissent
Then you have William Fichtner as Christopher Mulready. If Lang is the progressive dream, Mulready is the conservative intellectual powerhouse that Democrats are supposed to hate. But the episode refuses to let you hate him.
Seriously.
He’s brilliant. He’s principled. He’s also the guy who tells Toby Ziegler—the grumpiest man in Washington—to his face that he’s wrong about the law, and he does it with such charm that you almost want him to win the argument. The scene where Mulready and Lang are seen arguing in the hallway, completely ignoring the political handlers around them, is the heart of the episode. They weren't enemies. They were sparring partners. They respected the "game" of the law more than the "game" of the politics.
Basically, the episode suggests that the Court shouldn't be a place where the middle goes to die. It should be a place where the best ideas from both sides are forced to collide.
Why the "Center of the Center" is a Lie
One of the most biting critiques in "The Supremes" is directed at the idea of the "moderate" judge. Josh Lyman realizes that by picking Shelton (the moderate), they aren't actually helping the country. They’re just filling a seat with a guy who has no vision.
The dialogue hits hard here: "He's the center of the center. He's a zero."
💡 You might also like: Why American Beauty by the Grateful Dead is Still the Gold Standard of Americana
In the 2020s, we see this play out in real-time. Every time a seat opens up, the "bipartisan" dream is usually someone who won't ruffle feathers. But The West Wing argued that the country is actually better served by high-IQ extremists who have a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution, even if they interpret it through completely different lenses. It’s a romanticized view of Washington, sure. Maybe even a naive one. But man, is it compelling television.
The Production Magic You Might Have Missed
Directed by Jessica Yu, the episode moves at a breakneck pace. It’s one of those episodes where the walk-and-talks actually feel like they’re going somewhere important. You’ve got the sub-plot with the parents of a dead soldier, which provides the emotional "B-story" needed to ground the high-level legal theory. It reminds the audience that while the characters are debating the 14th Amendment, there are real people out there dealing with the consequences of government policy.
It’s also worth noting the humor. The Supremes isn’t a slog. It’s funny.
- The scene with the "shortlist" being leaked.
- The interaction between the Chief Justice’s clerks.
- The pure, unadulterated joy on Josh’s face when he realizes he can actually pull this off.
It’s a masterclass in tone. You’re learning about the judicial confirmation process, but you feel like you’re watching a heist movie.
Real World Parallels: Did This Ever Actually Happen?
Look, if you’re looking for a one-to-one historical match for a "double appointment" like this, you won't find it. Not really. The closest thing we’ve had in modern history was perhaps the 1971 appointments by Richard Nixon of Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist. But even that didn't have the "odd couple" energy of Lang and Mulready.
In reality, the Supreme Court confirmation process is a blood sport. The idea that a Democratic President could nominate a Scalia-like figure in exchange for a Ginsburg-like figure is, quite frankly, a fantasy. But that’s why we watch The West Wing. We want to see the version of the world where the "smartest guys in the room" actually solve the problem instead of just complaining about it on Twitter.
📖 Related: Why October London Make Me Wanna Is the Soul Revival We Actually Needed
Some critics at the time pointed out that the episode was a bit of a "fairy tale." And they’re right. It is. But it’s a fairy tale with a point. It asks: "What would happen if we prioritized brilliance over electability?"
Actionable Takeaways for the West Wing Fan
If you're going back to rewatch this—or if you're a writer trying to capture this kind of energy—pay attention to these specific elements:
- Conflict through Respect: The best scenes aren't Lang vs. the Republicans; they are Lang and Mulready vs. the status quo. To write a good argument, your opponent has to be as smart as you are.
- The "High-Low" Strategy: The episode balances high-level constitutional law with low-level political maneuvering. It keeps the stakes high but the "nerd factor" accessible.
- Pacing via Dialogue: Notice how the characters finish each other's sentences. It’s not just for speed; it’s to show they are on the same wavelength.
What to Do Next
If this episode left you craving more "high-stakes legal drama" that doesn't feel like a soap opera, you should honestly go back and watch the early seasons of The Good Wife or the "Six Meetings Before Lunch" episode of The West Wing (Season 1, Episode 18).
Also, if you're interested in the actual history of the Court, check out Jeffrey Toobin’s The Nine. It’s a bit dated now, but it captures the same kind of "behind the velvet curtain" energy that "The Supremes" nails so perfectly.
Stop looking for the "safe" choice in your own life or work. Be more like Josh Lyman. Find the two opposites that, when put together, actually make a whole. It’s riskier, sure. But it’s a hell of a lot more interesting than beige paint.