We need to stop appointing attorneys to SCOTUS....

Oh God! Do you even make the tiniest of efforts?

 

He was an affable ideologue.

 

Two different things: I believe the law should be applied consistently according to the intention of the law. That's one thing.

The second is that there is no reason to believe that only attorneys can apply the law consistently independently of how you define "consistency". But justices don't apply the law. They interpret it. And in the last 200+ years it has been interpreted very inconsistently.

 

Because it makes the letter of the law meaningless. Anything can (and does) become "I'm voting this way because I THINK or FEEL it is right and not because that's what the law mandates".

 

So...if you are eating chocolate ice cream on a Sunday after 4PM you should go to jail...because the law in 1826 said so?

 

If that was the law. Lots of laws seem foolish a century after the fact. Bringing one like that forward as an example is a strawman argument.

 

No, it justifies jury nullification.

 

He was actually a cantankerous grumpy old man, but RBG respected his opinion.

 

Absolutely AGREE


There exist qualified people who are not lawyers
to hold a position on the Supreme Court.

Constitutional historians and such.



Moi

​

 

He was an affable ideologue

I completely agree! I've read constitutional historians tell us how much of the original intent was corrupted, even while Madison and Hamilton were alive. For example, the electoral college. It was never intended to be what it became. And they were furious.

That's actually what made me think about this.

I would love to see a constitutional historian in the Supreme Court.

 

I have thought about this since you started the thread and I always keep coming back to one over riding consideration. The job of the supreme court is to judge based on the laws as passed by congress and the Constitution. If there is a conflict, then the Constitution is the final authority. All too often, that simple concept is overlooked in the interest of "humanity". However, what is humane for one group is all to often inhumane or wrong to someone else.

Like all professions, lawyers have their own language. They sound the same as our language and but the words differ slightly in meaning or even use words which none of us normally use. Many times, if not most times, Constitutional arguments are about the precise definition of words or phrases. Words and phrases often have different meanings to different people. Those meanings should be the same as what was intended by the authors of the Constitution.

I am not convinced that someone who has not spent their life reading and understanding the law is equipped to do this. Is it possible for someone outside the law profession to possess those skills? Absolutely, but intentionally picking someone outside the profession is a different story completely.

Pick them based on qualifications, not based on profession.

 

It takes a lawyer to understand the laws that lawyers write? Sometimes it just ain't that hard.

 

I can tell you right now you don't want me on the SCOTUS! Liberals would lose every time.

 

Witness our losses within The Bill of Rights
Do I need to make a list?


A university, published author of Constitutional history
would bring a focus different from conclusions of lawyers upon lawyers.


The 4th guarantees the privacy of my "papers and effects"

now GWTW​

A Copy Of This Upload Is On File At The Federal Facility in Utah.

Get It Or Not.​

And That Is Why We Need NOT A LAWYER on the
Supreme Court.
Knowledgeable but from a different school of the Constitution.
Lawyers upon lawyers can confuse the "intent" of the authors
a historian might better discuss in their private sessions.


The 4th was intended to give me / us security in our thoughts.
My electronic footprints are My Papers And Effects
as certainly as any quill, ink and paper writing.


What part do I have incorrect, please


Moi

Don't ize
​

 

I am not sure what kind of point you are making. A lawyer well versed in the law and the Constitution should not be monkeying around with the Bill of Rights. As closely as possible, they should be exactly as the authors of the Constitution intended.

 

We need to stop appointing attorneys to SCOTUS....yeah they know too dang much about laws and stuff. Someone should nominate you.

 

But, the lawyers and . . . . .

have this communication stored in their "files"


What more point could you mean as within the
concepts of the founding fathers. Hardly electronic
but the protection is the same.



Except Via Lawyers, etc. etc.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

Democrats have nominated nothing but ideologues since FDR. And the chief thing most of them have done is find ways to ignore, at whim, as much of the constitution as possible or create rights that, in point of fact, are enumerated no where in the constitution.

 

lol, that would be funny.

 

So you don't want the constitution interpreted as it was written? Scalia was a conservative and an originalist.

 

Because McConnell set precedent in '16 citing the "Biden Rule". He was under no obligation to bring it to a vote as it was. Or he could have brought it to a vote and it would have failed. No need for the dog and pony show. Now he is as hypocritical as Pelosi and Schumer and I expect more from the GOP.

 

Every SCOTUS Justice is a variation of two main types. The first is those that apply the law equally to everyone. The other is the type that applies Judicial Activism as opposed to the written law. Scalia was an example of the first type, and Sotomayor is an example of the second type. Yet, whichever type of judge you think we need, they have to be versed in the law. A political appointee is not a good fit for the SCOTUS. Justices have to have an understanding of the law. Otherwise it would be no different then appointing the President of a dog food manufacture to the position of Surgeon General. It just doesn't work. Would you actually want the same standards for a SCOTUS as most states have for Magistrates? I wouldn't.

 

Well Democrats are hypocritically preaching the other side of the issue this time. What happened to it's the President's duty to nominate a Justice? Truth is politics is full of hypocrites, it's what they do. In spite of anything that was said to Obama, Trump is President and has the right to appoint a replacement for RBG and he will. Then it's up to Mitch to get the votes to confirm. That could be iffy.

 

I think they will succeed or at least I hope they do. It will be a net win for the country. It bothers me that McConnell had to muddy things up the way he did though. He could have been more tactful and accomplished the exact same goal.

The left will no drought burn a few city blocks over all this though.