A proposed Women-of-the-Supreme-Court Lego set is rejected as a violation of Lego's policy against "politics and political symbols, campaigns, or movements"...

... which prompts NPR to delve into whether what the Supreme Court does is (or looks like) politics:

"I honestly understand having a policy in place like that," said [science journalist Maia Weinstock, who designed the set]. But Weinstock said she looked at the policy before submitting and didn't think that her project was political.

"The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be separate from political considerations," she said. "People are appointed for life specifically so that they don't answer to the changing whims of politics."

Of course, that's especially silly when you are celebrating the presence of women on the Court. They are there because Presidents appointed them, and it's obvious that the final selection from the pool of qualified candidates is political. Ronald Reagan had made it a campaign promise that he would appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court. And when has any President simply nominated the person with the best judicial mind or some such entirely neutral concept?

Whether the Supreme Court is removed from politics is a point of great debate, and many — on both sides — disagree with Weinstock's view.

Once Justices are on the Court, the question whether they are or should be removed from politics remains continually in play, so in that sense, the Court can never escape politics. Quite apart from that, constitutional decisions — even if they could be made according to some strictly neutral form of analysis — determine whether things will be removed from or left to majoritarian politics and, in that sense, the work is inescapably political.

In constitutional law much is made of the special role of the courts in saying what the law is, but in Lego law, it is emphatically the province and duty of Lego to say how the policy applies. And in NPR world, it is the province of NPR to interpret the interpretation:

Lego seems to side with the growing American sentiment that the court is becoming increasingly political.

The company did not return a request for comment, but it did tell The Daily Beast: "It's true, as a children's toy brand, we refrain from any associations with active or current politics. Cases in which the LEGO brand are used in this manner have historical context. Any contemporary political association of the LEGO brand is unofficial content that is generated by enthusiasts and not endorsed by the LEGO Group."

But Weinstock maintains that her creation was intended to transcend politics.

"The other major consideration for me is that I thought it would be a wonderful opportunity to highlight the history of women in the United States, and especially in law," she said. "I later learned after I submitted that a relatively small number of women are actually lawyers in this country. And as you go up the ranks higher and higher through our judicial system, the percentages get even fewer and fewer."

"And frankly," Weinstock added, "I thought it would be awesome to have a Latina justice. There are very few Latin American role models in toys that I know of."

Of course, even that notion, could be seen as political for some.

Count me in the "some." And, by the way, I think NPR's use of the word "some" is political. And I'd also say that "intend[ing] to transcend politics" is political.