Constitutional Literacy NOT a Requirement for SCOTUS

[Kurtis Bottke]

[/Am I the only one who is appalled that there are NO Constitutional scholars on the Supreme Court? It's frightening to think that on a body whose sole purpose is interpreting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there's probably no one whose even read the Federalist Papers, the very arguments that our Constitution is based on. It's because the Supreme Court cannot be counted on to overturn unconstitutional laws that people like the Liberty Candidates (gigibowman.wordpress.com) are needed to ensure such laws are not passed to begin with, and to try and overturn those that have already been passed. If the Federalist Papers and the Constitution are used as a guide 3/4 of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, political correctness, not Constitutional knowledge are more important in selecting a nominee. Both the right and left are guilty of this. Neither side wants to risk having someone knowledgeable about the Constitution and Bill of Rights overturning their pet laws and regulations. This is why we must be careful not to elect more establishment hacks to Congress, but strict Constitutionalists. Liberty Candidates are such people. We need a REAL revolution of ideas in November, not the same old Progressive ideology that has been destroying world economies for over a century. COLOR]

 

[Vanquish]

Don't tell Sarah Palin that you want a constitutional scholar....we elected one president and she tears him down for it.

That being said, I agree with your main sentiment. The judicial activism has run amok. We need textualists or originalists as SC candidates, plain and simple.

 

[jillian]

Don't tell Sarah Palin that you want a constitutional scholar....we elected one president and she tears him down for it.

That being said, I agree with your main sentiment. The judicial activism has run amok. We need textualists or originalists as SC candidates, plain and simple.

there isn't any such thing as 'originalism except as a political construct'.... there weren't even on the 'original' USSC.

 

[rightwinger]

Call for fundamentalist Constitutionists.

Lets get someone who reads the Constitution like the Bible and assumes the founding fathers were Gods

 

[Avatar4321]

Don't tell Sarah Palin that you want a constitutional scholar....we elected one president and she tears him down for it.

That being said, I agree with your main sentiment. The judicial activism has run amok. We need textualists or originalists as SC candidates, plain and simple.

Haha. Yeah. Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. Right.

 

[Diuretic]

[/Am I the only one who is appalled that there are NO Constitutional scholars on the Supreme Court? It's frightening to think that on a body whose sole purpose is interpreting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there's probably no one whose even read the Federalist Papers, the very arguments that our Constitution is based on. It's because the Supreme Court cannot be counted on to overturn unconstitutional laws that people like the Liberty Candidates (gigibowman.wordpress.com) are needed to ensure such laws are not passed to begin with, and to try and overturn those that have already been passed. If the Federalist Papers and the Constitution are used as a guide 3/4 of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, political correctness, not Constitutional knowledge are more important in selecting a nominee. Both the right and left are guilty of this. Neither side wants to risk having someone knowledgeable about the Constitution and Bill of Rights overturning their pet laws and regulations. This is why we must be careful not to elect more establishment hacks to Congress, but strict Constitutionalists. Liberty Candidates are such people. We need a REAL revolution of ideas in November, not the same old Progressive ideology that has been destroying world economies for over a century. COLOR]

The Federalist Papers? Why would you use them as an authority?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Fact is that there is actually no requirement for a Supreme court justice to even be a Lawyer. All it really takes is common sense. the Constitution is not that difficult to read and understand, we have made it difficult over the years. With things like a 2500 page health care bill that isn't about health care. We just can't seem to learn.

 

[Vanquish]

Don't tell Sarah Palin that you want a constitutional scholar....we elected one president and she tears him down for it.

That being said, I agree with your main sentiment. The judicial activism has run amok. We need textualists or originalists as SC candidates, plain and simple.

Haha. Yeah. Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. Right.

You realize he taught Con Law, right? That makes your comment pretty much ridiculous.

 

[Vanquish]

Fact is that there is actually no requirement for a Supreme court justice to even be a Lawyer. All it really takes is common sense. the Constitution is not that difficult to read and understand, we have made it difficult over the years. With things like a 2500 page health care bill that isn't about health care. We just can't seem to learn.

You're wrong.

To be a judge you're required to have been a lawyer.

To be on the SCOTUS you're required to have been a lawyer.

Wrong on all counts. I know you're going with the whole, it's not in the constitution thing...but yeah, there are requirements that are legal, but not in the constitution.

Hate to break it to ya.

 

[jillian]

Don't tell Sarah Palin that you want a constitutional scholar....we elected one president and she tears him down for it.

That being said, I agree with your main sentiment. The judicial activism has run amok. We need textualists or originalists as SC candidates, plain and simple.

Haha. Yeah. Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. Right.

haha... yeah. he taught constitutional law at one of the better law schools in the country.

but feel free to compare palin and her 'pro america parts of the country' to him.

you betcha!

 

[Avatar4321]

Don't tell Sarah Palin that you want a constitutional scholar....we elected one president and she tears him down for it.

That being said, I agree with your main sentiment. The judicial activism has run amok. We need textualists or originalists as SC candidates, plain and simple.

Haha. Yeah. Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. Right.

You realize he taught Con Law, right? That makes your comment pretty much ridiculous.

So they say. But his policies show he doesn't know jack about it.

 

[Vanquish]

Haha. Yeah. Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. Right.

You realize he taught Con Law, right? That makes your comment pretty much ridiculous.

So they say. But his policies show he doesn't know jack about it.

"They"? So you're disputing that he was actually a Con Law teacher? Wow. just. wow.

Saying he knows the constitution is different from he enforces the constitution.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Fact is that there is actually no requirement for a Supreme court justice to even be a Lawyer. All it really takes is common sense. the Constitution is not that difficult to read and understand, we have made it difficult over the years. With things like a 2500 page health care bill that isn't about health care. We just can't seem to learn.

You're wrong.

To be a judge you're required to have been a lawyer.

To be on the SCOTUS you're required to have been a lawyer.

Wrong on all counts. I know you're going with the whole, it's not in the constitution thing...but yeah, there are requirements that are legal, but not in the constitution.

Hate to break it to ya.

Hate to break it to ya skippy. But I am correct.

Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Read it sometime. Or show me where there is some requirement that I don't see. Show them to me.

A few trivia facts:
Of the 111 Supreme Court members, only 46 have held degrees from accredited law schools; 18 attended law school, but never attained a degree; and 47 were self-taught and/or went through an apprenticeship.

 

[Vanquish]

I already predicted that you'd say that, so you might want to skip to the next.

And care to date any of the people in those statistics you posted? I'm betting that wasn't so recently.

I love people who chant "It aint in the Constitution so it aint legal!" There's a lot of stuff that's not in there that's legal.

Nowdays, there's no way you're getting on the bench without a law degree. Any president that did that would get slaughtered politically. Judges need law degrees because the law is often counter-intuitive. It's not something you can just pick up one day and reason out by common sense.

Hate to tell ya.

 

[rightwinger]

I already predicted that you'd say that, so you might want to skip to the next.

And care to date any of the people in those statistics you posted? I'm betting that wasn't so recently.

I love people who chant "It aint in the Constitution so it aint legal!" There's a lot of stuff that's not in there that's legal.

Nowdays, there's no way you're getting on the bench without a law degree. Any president that did that would get slaughtered politically. Judges need law degrees because the law is often counter-intuitive. It's not something you can just pick up one day and reason out by common sense.

Hate to tell ya.

There is no requirement for a member of the Supreme Court to be a lawyer. Never has been. It is only since the Eisenhower administration that they have been selecting former judges.
Prior to that they selected Governors, Senators and even a former President. They did not have to be a lawyer.
But the point is moot because nobody will be confirmed who does not have a law degree

 

[Vanquish]

But that still doesnt negate what I posted:

1. the law isnt something you just pick up and figure out in a day or a few days. There are doctrines that aren't in there, bodies of precedent that you need to know, and mechanisms (like joint and several liability) that just have to be learned.

2. from now on...in "modern times" I'll pay you 100$ for every Supreme Court justice that's not a former lawyer. That extends to your family in perpetuity. It wont happen.

3. To be a judge, you'd need to have been a lawyer. About 40 States presently allow nonlawyers to hold limited jurisdiction judgeships, but that's highly limited.

So while there's no requirement in the Constitution, it won't happen.

 

[Dr Gregg]

yes, somebody likely without a law degree, specifically constitutional law, claiming on a forum the most highest judges in the land, who rule based on the constitution, don't know the constitution.

Give me a break. Its the people that keep claiming SCOTUS rulings are unconstitutional that don't seem to know dick about the constitution. And don't bring up the "that's the not what the framers intended" because precedent and the history of this country state otherwise. SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws. So stop whining about SCOTUS doing what they are supposed to do, it really gets old

 

[rightwinger]

But that still doesnt negate what I posted:

1. the law isnt something you just pick up and figure out in a day or a few days. There are doctrines that aren't in there, bodies of precedent that you need to know, and mechanisms (like joint and several liability) that just have to be learned.

2. from now on...in "modern times" I'll pay you 100$ for every Supreme Court justice that's not a former lawyer. That extends to your family in perpetuity. It wont happen.

3. To be a judge, you'd need to have been a lawyer. About 40 States presently allow nonlawyers to hold limited jurisdiction judgeships, but that's highly limited.

So while there's no requirement in the Constitution, it won't happen.

Most high level politicians are former lawyers. It is not really a question of whether the nominee will have a law degree but whether Obama breaks recent precedence and nominates someone who is not a former judge

 

[Vanquish]

So you're afraid he's going to do that? Is there a news article I missed? He'd get crucified if he did that...especially by me

 

[amrchaos]

So, you rightwingers were shocked at the nomination of Harriet Mayers then?

I thought the reason she withdrew from the nomination was the fact that she could notanswer any of the constitutional questions asked by Republicans! In other words, it is a custom of congress members to ask questions concerning the constitution of potential candidates for a Supreme Court nomination. Or have you guys forgotten already?