Constitutional Literacy NOT a Requirement for SCOTUS

[SFC Ollie]

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.

Hate to disapoint you but Sonia Sotomayor makes 111. My numbers are up to date.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

Maybe it should.

 

[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.

Hate to disapoint you but Sonia Sotomayor makes 111. My numbers are up to date.

100 and 11 what? She's got a JD and she was a district court judge. You're not making sense to me.

 

[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.

Maybe it should.

Why would you want a non-lawyer to decide the law? That's like saying...let's build a bridge and hire someone who's never done any engineering...he can just figure it out.

More proof of the danger of this "aint in the constitution" mentality.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

Maybe it should.

Why would you want a non-lawyer to decide the law? That's like saying...let's build a bridge and hire someone who's never done any engineering...he can just figure it out.

More proof of the danger of this "aint in the constitution" mentality.

A lawyer uses the law in his work to get his way. He doesn't have to believe his client is innocent to get his client off without paying any penalties. I'd rather have someone with morals making the final judgments in this land. And you don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law or the constitution.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

Hate to disapoint you but Sonia Sotomayor makes 111. My numbers are up to date.

100 and 11 what? She's got a JD and she was a district court judge. You're not making sense to me.

My Quote from post # 13 in this thread:

"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."

Your quote from post # 14 this thread:

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

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe you should just concede that there is no requirement for a Supreme Court Justice to be a Lawyer. Even though most have been.

 

[Vanquish]

Oh I'm willing to concede that...but when's the last time that actually happened? What I'm saying is I bet the last time that happened was at least 30 or 40 years ago. Nowdays, try that and it won't fly.

And why did you just post Sotomayor's name? She's a former judge and lawyer. Posting her name made no sense to me. Care to explain?

 

[Vanquish]

Maybe it should.

Why would you want a non-lawyer to decide the law? That's like saying...let's build a bridge and hire someone who's never done any engineering...he can just figure it out.

More proof of the danger of this "aint in the constitution" mentality.

A lawyer uses the law in his work to get his way. He doesn't have to believe his client is innocent to get his client off without paying any penalties. I'd rather have someone with morals making the final judgments in this land. And you don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law or the constitution.

Technically you dont. You could go to law school...not graduate, take years to study the law under tutors or from self-study...

but that's not the kind of judge I'd want. Someone who actually went to law school...got tested...who was put through his/her paces in class and taught the things that arent obvious just from plain reading...that's who will serve us best.

What irks me I guess is this slavish idea that america would return to the glory days with just a plain reading of the constitution. THERES MORE TO IT THAN THAT.

As I outlined before...often the law is counter-intuitive and you can't just sit down and grasp it all overnight.

 

[Yurt]

lmao....teaching con law does not a constitutional scholar make

he wasn't even full time, didn't he teach one class....teaching con law to 1st years does not require youi to be a con law scholar

 

[Vanquish]

I've heard it was more than that, but feel free to cite to some authority.

Even teaching one Con Law class (usually not to 1Ls btw, although that's up for debate) puts you miles ahead of someone who's never taught it...and even further ahead of someone who's not a lawyer.

Yeah, scholar would seem to mean that they did lots of rigorous work in the field...maybe wrote a hornbook or something. Still a lot stronger than Palin though.

 

[Yurt]

I've heard it was more than that, but feel free to cite to some authority.

Even teaching one Con Law class (usually not to 1Ls btw, although that's up for debate) puts you miles ahead of someone who's never taught it...and even further ahead of someone who's not a lawyer.

Yeah, scholar would seem to mean that they did lots of rigorous work in the field...maybe wrote a hornbook or something. Still a lot stronger than Palin though.

con law 1 is usually taught second semester of your first year....maybe not all schools, but most do

 

[Vanquish]

The one's Ive attended it's been second year everytime. Oh well, potato poh-tah-toe

 

[rightwinger]

lmao....teaching con law does not a constitutional scholar make

he wasn't even full time, didn't he teach one class....teaching con law to 1st years does not require youi to be a con law scholar

Yea ...you are right...he was only a community activist

Nothing he accomplished after that counts for anything

 

[bodecea]

[/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]

What crap....what evidence do you have that they have not read the Federalist Papers? (BTW...the Federalist Papers are not determiners of whether something is Constitutional or not)

And good luck trying to MAKE people vote only for "strict Constitutionalists" to Congress...the Constitution itself states you cannot add new requirements.

 

[Againsheila]

I've heard it was more than that, but feel free to cite to some authority.

Even teaching one Con Law class (usually not to 1Ls btw, although that's up for debate) puts you miles ahead of someone who's never taught it...and even further ahead of someone who's not a lawyer.

Yeah, scholar would seem to mean that they did lots of rigorous work in the field...maybe wrote a hornbook or something. Still a lot stronger than Palin though.

Okay, wait a minute..just because you teach a subject, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in that subject. My friend applied for a teaching job while she was working to get her teaching certificate. She was already a micro biologist and she was applying for a position to teach science in high-school. She was turned down in favor of a 65 year old woman who hadn't had any science since she'd been in high-school simply because she already had her teaching certificate.

 

[bodecea]

I've heard it was more than that, but feel free to cite to some authority.

Even teaching one Con Law class (usually not to 1Ls btw, although that's up for debate) puts you miles ahead of someone who's never taught it...and even further ahead of someone who's not a lawyer.

Yeah, scholar would seem to mean that they did lots of rigorous work in the field...maybe wrote a hornbook or something. Still a lot stronger than Palin though.

Okay, wait a minute..just because you teach a subject, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in that subject. My friend applied for a teaching job while she was working to get her teaching certificate. She was already a micro biologist and she was applying for a position to teach science in high-school. She was turned down in favor of a 65 year old woman who hadn't had any science since she'd been in high-school simply because she already had her teaching certificate.

NCLB required teaching certificates in the subject to be taught. It is manditory.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Oh I'm willing to concede that...but when's the last time that actually happened? What I'm saying is I bet the last time that happened was at least 30 or 40 years ago. Nowdays, try that and it won't fly.

And why did you just post Sotomayor's name? She's a former judge and lawyer. Posting her name made no sense to me. Care to explain?

Sotomayor made justice number 111. my list is current.