Last month, the Massachusetts Governor's Council confirmed Law School professor Charles Fried as a justice on the state's Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). No one can controvert Fried's qualifications as a scholar, but he does leave much to be desired in other areas. He has no experience as a jurist at the state level, and his political views will further submerge Massachusetts in the conservative tide initiated by Gov. William F. Weld '66.

Fried's lack of experience makes him a peculiar choice. He might have been a role model for Weld during the governor's days as a law student, but that doesn't mean he should be the last word on state-level cases. It's not as though Massachusetts has a shortage of state superior court judges with decades more experience.

But Weld undoubtedly wanted Fried in place for those landmark political decisions that inevitably move on to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fried's writings have been characterized as inimical to labor and women, with a revisionist view of Roe v. Wade and disparagement for unions.

We support Fried's avid defense of free speech, but his libertarianism extends to a degree favored most by arch-conservatives. Fried's support of capital punishment also makes us queasy. Weld called Fried "ballast to the right" and "a Scalia on the court." If there's anything we don't need it's another Justice Antonin Scalia, whose teaming with Justice Clarence Thomas has given a far-right tinge to Supreme Court opinions of late.

Scholars of Fried's caliber certainly belong on the SJC, but we'd like to see a less conservative voice. Fried's appointment has not necessarily made the SJC more conservative (he replaced one), but his is the first of a slew of slots that will open in the next five years. The state's mandatory retirement age for justices will allow Weld and his successor to choose a majority for the court. Let's hope Weld's successor chooses judges with more concern for his or her constituents.