Too Many Lawyers?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks we have too many lawyers. He thinks young people should “do something productive” with their lives instead.

Here’s Scalia:

"Well, you know, two chiefs ago, Chief Justice Burger, used to complain about the low quality of counsel. I used to have just the opposite reaction. I used to be disappointed that so many of the best minds in the country were being devoted to this enterprise.

I mean there’d be a, you know, a defense or public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?"

Too Many Lawyers? « LewRockwell.com Blog

If Scalia doesn't think lawyers are productive I wonder what he thinks of Supreme Court Justices?

I also thought Huebert's reasoning as to why there are so many lawyers was insightful as well.

 

[Varth Dader]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks we have too many lawyers. He thinks young people should “do something productive” with their lives instead.

Here’s Scalia:

"Well, you know, two chiefs ago, Chief Justice Burger, used to complain about the low quality of counsel. I used to have just the opposite reaction. I used to be disappointed that so many of the best minds in the country were being devoted to this enterprise.

I mean there’d be a, you know, a defense or public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?"

Too Many Lawyers? « LewRockwell.com Blog

If Scalia doesn't think lawyers are productive I wonder what he thinks of Supreme Court Justices?

I also thought Huebert's reasoning as to why there are so many lawyers was insightful as well.

Last I checked Supreme Court Justices didn't have to be lawyer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks we have too many lawyers. He thinks young people should “do something productive” with their lives instead.

Here’s Scalia:

"Well, you know, two chiefs ago, Chief Justice Burger, used to complain about the low quality of counsel. I used to have just the opposite reaction. I used to be disappointed that so many of the best minds in the country were being devoted to this enterprise.

I mean there’d be a, you know, a defense or public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?"

Too Many Lawyers? « LewRockwell.com Blog

If Scalia doesn't think lawyers are productive I wonder what he thinks of Supreme Court Justices?

I also thought Huebert's reasoning as to why there are so many lawyers was insightful as well.

Last I checked Supreme Court Justices didn't have to be lawyer.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that lawyers are far more productive than a Supreme Court Justice is.

 

[Varth Dader]

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that lawyers are far more productive than a Supreme Court Justice is.

Productive? Supreme Court Justices do more in a day to develop the field of law that most lawyers in their lifetime. What is productivity? Filling motions at the courthouse? Drafting a contract or two?

The whole judicial system rests on those Supreme Court justices. I think they are very productive.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that lawyers are far more productive than a Supreme Court Justice is.

Productive? Supreme Court Justices do more in a day to develop the field of law that most lawyers in their lifetime. What is productivity? Filling motions at the courthouse? Drafting a contract or two?

The whole judicial system rests on those Supreme Court justices. I think they are very productive.

Lawyers provide a beneficial service to people on a daily basis in the private sector, whereas Supreme Court justices are given life tenure to slowly and incrementally remove the liberty of the very people who pay their salary.

 

[Varth Dader]

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that lawyers are far more productive than a Supreme Court Justice is.

Productive? Supreme Court Justices do more in a day to develop the field of law that most lawyers in their lifetime. What is productivity? Filling motions at the courthouse? Drafting a contract or two?

The whole judicial system rests on those Supreme Court justices. I think they are very productive.

Lawyers provide a beneficial service to people on a daily basis in the private sector, whereas Supreme Court justices are given life tenure to slowly and incrementally remove the liberty of the very people who pay their salary.

Really? Explain to me the individual liberty removed in griswold v. connecticut, roe v. wade, heller v. district of columbia.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Productive? Supreme Court Justices do more in a day to develop the field of law that most lawyers in their lifetime. What is productivity? Filling motions at the courthouse? Drafting a contract or two?

The whole judicial system rests on those Supreme Court justices. I think they are very productive.

Lawyers provide a beneficial service to people on a daily basis in the private sector, whereas Supreme Court justices are given life tenure to slowly and incrementally remove the liberty of the very people who pay their salary.

Really? Explain to me the individual liberty removed in griswold v. connecticut, roe v. wade, heller v. district of columbia.

Instead of narrowly focusing on your cherry picked cases let's look at an overall history of the Supreme Court which has generally allowed for the extreme expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states and the people.

 

[Varth Dader]

Lawyers provide a beneficial service to people on a daily basis in the private sector, whereas Supreme Court justices are given life tenure to slowly and incrementally remove the liberty of the very people who pay their salary.

Really? Explain to me the individual liberty removed in griswold v. connecticut, roe v. wade, heller v. district of columbia.

Instead of narrowly focusing on your cherry picked cases let's look at an overall history of the Supreme Court which has generally allowed for the extreme expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states and the people.

The states is NOT the people. The federal government is as much an elected body as the state government. People can vote in both. They both represent the people.

I agree with you that the SCOTUS trajectory has been to "grant" more powers to the federal government (which anyways already started when the US moved from the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution).

But even with that, it doesn't mean that this expansion has been at the expense of the people. If anything, it seems to me the federal courts have expanded people's rights especially in cases where state were limiting the rights of their citizens.

 

[RodISHI]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks we have too many lawyers. He thinks young people should “do something productive” with their lives instead.

Here’s Scalia:

"Well, you know, two chiefs ago, Chief Justice Burger, used to complain about the low quality of counsel. I used to have just the opposite reaction. I used to be disappointed that so many of the best minds in the country were being devoted to this enterprise.

I mean there’d be a, you know, a defense or public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?"

Too Many Lawyers? « LewRockwell.com Blog

If Scalia doesn't think lawyers are productive I wonder what he thinks of Supreme Court Justices?

I also thought Huebert's reasoning as to why there are so many lawyers was insightful as well.

A dear friend of mine a retired judge and I had this conversation years ago. He said it is a quality issue and anyone can get into law school now. He said they lowered the standards for law school dramatically.

 

[Varth Dader]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks we have too many lawyers. He thinks young people should “do something productive” with their lives instead.

Here’s Scalia:

"Well, you know, two chiefs ago, Chief Justice Burger, used to complain about the low quality of counsel. I used to have just the opposite reaction. I used to be disappointed that so many of the best minds in the country were being devoted to this enterprise.

I mean there’d be a, you know, a defense or public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?"

Too Many Lawyers? « LewRockwell.com Blog

If Scalia doesn't think lawyers are productive I wonder what he thinks of Supreme Court Justices?

I also thought Huebert's reasoning as to why there are so many lawyers was insightful as well.

A dear friend of mine a retired judge and I had this conversation years ago. He said it is a quality issue and anyone can get into law school now. He said they lowered the standards for law school dramatically.

It certainly does not help that law schools are often money making projects (instead of being there to really form legal jurists)

Then again, I guess it's capitalism at work!

 

[RodISHI]

Too Many Lawyers? « LewRockwell.com Blog

If Scalia doesn't think lawyers are productive I wonder what he thinks of Supreme Court Justices?

I also thought Huebert's reasoning as to why there are so many lawyers was insightful as well.

A dear friend of mine a retired judge and I had this conversation years ago. He said it is a quality issue and anyone can get into law school now. He said they lowered the standards for law school dramatically.

It certainly does not help that law schools are often money making projects (instead of being there to really form legal jurists)

Then again, I guess it's capitalism at work!

That's why we have so many judges that take payoffs, huh?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Really? Explain to me the individual liberty removed in griswold v. connecticut, roe v. wade, heller v. district of columbia.

Instead of narrowly focusing on your cherry picked cases let's look at an overall history of the Supreme Court which has generally allowed for the extreme expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states and the people.

The states is NOT the people. The federal government is as much an elected body as the state government. People can vote in both. They both represent the people.

I agree with you that the SCOTUS trajectory has been to "grant" more powers to the federal government (which anyways already started when the US moved from the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution).

But even with that, it doesn't mean that this expansion has been at the expense of the people. If anything, it seems to me the federal courts have expanded people's rights especially in cases where state were limiting the rights of their citizens.

I did not say the states were the people, that's why I mentioned both individually. Any growth of government is at the expense of either the states or the people.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Too Many Lawyers? « LewRockwell.com Blog

If Scalia doesn't think lawyers are productive I wonder what he thinks of Supreme Court Justices?

I also thought Huebert's reasoning as to why there are so many lawyers was insightful as well.

A dear friend of mine a retired judge and I had this conversation years ago. He said it is a quality issue and anyone can get into law school now. He said they lowered the standards for law school dramatically.

It certainly does not help that law schools are often money making projects (instead of being there to really form legal jurists)

Then again, I guess it's capitalism at work!

Yes, higher education is certainly a great example of capitalism at work.

 

[JD_2B]

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that lawyers are far more productive than a Supreme Court Justice is.

Productive? Supreme Court Justices do more in a day to develop the field of law that most lawyers in their lifetime. What is productivity? Filling motions at the courthouse? Drafting a contract or two?

The whole judicial system rests on those Supreme Court justices. I think they are very productive.

The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret existing law, which is ever changing and evolving as a result. No two cases are exactly alike, and although your average lawyer might not set a whole heckuva lot of precedent, it is the law firm's responsibility to research any law, including case law, to even maintain a practical precedent already in place.

Without brilliant attorneys, the Supreme Court would not have much reading to do- and by the way, the Supreme Court tosses out about 95-99% of the cases it gets, without so much as a rudimentary review. MAYBE that is because some of the justices just get lazy or don't care about certain issues, or MAYBE it is because the person who gave them the case briefing (generally 30 pages or longer) was not a lawyer, but felt that they had enough of an understanding of the judicial system to do the briefing themselves..

Lawyers have to do a LOT of work to build a good case. Say they are representing the plaintiff- they have to interview the plaintiff, find hard evidence, dig deeper, and get more evidence for the discovery file, do all this filing and shit without getting paid for filing and retrieving files, make trips for no pay (except gas) keep digging and digging, just towards the case itself- the merits- and then they have to dig around and find case law and other supreme laws, that go for and against their client's case.. They also have to depose people, and make a ton of phone calls to keep people updated, send around memorandum of fact to other people working on the case, to keep them updated, try like hell to get their clients to pay their bills, and in the midst of all this shit they still have to DOCUMENT every single minute that they worked accurately, to avoid malpractice and getting disbarred.

It is an underappreciated profession, to say the least.. Lawyers work damn hard for the money, and deserve some recognition.

VD- I am sorry if all you (most likely) ever got was a shitty Public Defender, but those guys are so overworked and underpaid it is ridiculous. Supreme Court Justices, on the other hand, are most certainly not working 80 hour weeks to try to take care of all those cases that get tossed in the shredder.. And if they SAY they do, they definitely do not have to account for those hours on a time sheet.

 

[Varth Dader]

Instead of narrowly focusing on your cherry picked cases let's look at an overall history of the Supreme Court which has generally allowed for the extreme expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states and the people.

The states is NOT the people. The federal government is as much an elected body as the state government. People can vote in both. They both represent the people.

I agree with you that the SCOTUS trajectory has been to "grant" more powers to the federal government (which anyways already started when the US moved from the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution).

But even with that, it doesn't mean that this expansion has been at the expense of the people. If anything, it seems to me the federal courts have expanded people's rights especially in cases where state were limiting the rights of their citizens.

I did not say the states were the people, that's why I mentioned both individually. Any growth of government is at the expense of either the states or the people.

Are you saying that the federal government can only grow at the expense of the people or the state? What do you make of everything having to do with foreign nations? (Wars, treaties, etc.). Are they also done at the expense of the people or the states?

 

[Varth Dader]

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that lawyers are far more productive than a Supreme Court Justice is.

Productive? Supreme Court Justices do more in a day to develop the field of law that most lawyers in their lifetime. What is productivity? Filling motions at the courthouse? Drafting a contract or two?

The whole judicial system rests on those Supreme Court justices. I think they are very productive.

The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret existing law, which is ever changing and evolving as a result. No two cases are exactly alike, and although your average lawyer might not set a whole heckuva lot of precedent, it is the law firm's responsibility to research any law, including case law, to even maintain a practical precedent already in place.

Without brilliant attorneys, the Supreme Court would not have much reading to do- and by the way, the Supreme Court tosses out about 95-99% of the cases it gets, without so much as a rudimentary review. MAYBE that is because some of the justices just get lazy or don't care about certain issues, or MAYBE it is because the person who gave them the case briefing (generally 30 pages or longer) was not a lawyer, but felt that they had enough of an understanding of the judicial system to do the briefing themselves..

Lawyers have to do a LOT of work to build a good case. Say they are representing the plaintiff- they have to interview the plaintiff, find hard evidence, dig deeper, and get more evidence for the discovery file, do all this filing and shit without getting paid for filing and retrieving files, make trips for no pay (except gas) keep digging and digging, just towards the case itself- the merits- and then they have to dig around and find case law and other supreme laws, that go for and against their client's case.. They also have to depose people, and make a ton of phone calls to keep people updated, send around memorandum of fact to other people working on the case, to keep them updated, try like hell to get their clients to pay their bills, and in the midst of all this shit they still have to DOCUMENT every single minute that they worked accurately, to avoid malpractice and getting disbarred.

It is an underappreciated profession, to say the least.. Lawyers work damn hard for the money, and deserve some recognition.

VD- I am sorry if all you (most likely) ever got was a shitty Public Defender, but those guys are so overworked and underpaid it is ridiculous. Supreme Court Justices, on the other hand, are most certainly not working 80 hour weeks to try to take care of all those cases that get tossed in the shredder.. And if they SAY they do, they definitely do not have to account for those hours on a time sheet.

JD_2B, I have nothing against lawyers, and I think they provide a very useful service. And some of them will push the limits of the law and enable society to move in great directions. Some of them defend people which wouldn't normally get the defense they should always have access to (i.e. a good defense by a hard working advocate).

My problem is more with people thinking that Supreme Court justices are useless, or don't do anything, or are there to "remove the liberty of the very people who pay their salary".

That's awfully wrong. The SCOTUS has had many forward thinking justices who did anything but "remove the liberty of the very people who pay their salary". I think we often don't understand the hard work they do and simply throw stuff around like the quote I copy-pasted twice already.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The states is NOT the people. The federal government is as much an elected body as the state government. People can vote in both. They both represent the people.

I agree with you that the SCOTUS trajectory has been to "grant" more powers to the federal government (which anyways already started when the US moved from the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution).

But even with that, it doesn't mean that this expansion has been at the expense of the people. If anything, it seems to me the federal courts have expanded people's rights especially in cases where state were limiting the rights of their citizens.

I did not say the states were the people, that's why I mentioned both individually. Any growth of government is at the expense of either the states or the people.

Are you saying that the federal government can only grow at the expense of the people or the state? What do you make of everything having to do with foreign nations? (Wars, treaties, etc.). Are they also done at the expense of the people or the states?

Yes, because every illegitimate power the federal government takes is either taken from the state governments or from the people themselves. Wars, treaties, etc... are actually in the Constitution, which means they were powers ceded to the federal government. Now if you want to argue that those powers have been abused that's another story.

 

[JD_2B]

Productive? Supreme Court Justices do more in a day to develop the field of law that most lawyers in their lifetime. What is productivity? Filling motions at the courthouse? Drafting a contract or two?

The whole judicial system rests on those Supreme Court justices. I think they are very productive.

The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret existing law, which is ever changing and evolving as a result. No two cases are exactly alike, and although your average lawyer might not set a whole heckuva lot of precedent, it is the law firm's responsibility to research any law, including case law, to even maintain a practical precedent already in place.

Without brilliant attorneys, the Supreme Court would not have much reading to do- and by the way, the Supreme Court tosses out about 95-99% of the cases it gets, without so much as a rudimentary review. MAYBE that is because some of the justices just get lazy or don't care about certain issues, or MAYBE it is because the person who gave them the case briefing (generally 30 pages or longer) was not a lawyer, but felt that they had enough of an understanding of the judicial system to do the briefing themselves..

Lawyers have to do a LOT of work to build a good case. Say they are representing the plaintiff- they have to interview the plaintiff, find hard evidence, dig deeper, and get more evidence for the discovery file, do all this filing and shit without getting paid for filing and retrieving files, make trips for no pay (except gas) keep digging and digging, just towards the case itself- the merits- and then they have to dig around and find case law and other supreme laws, that go for and against their client's case.. They also have to depose people, and make a ton of phone calls to keep people updated, send around memorandum of fact to other people working on the case, to keep them updated, try like hell to get their clients to pay their bills, and in the midst of all this shit they still have to DOCUMENT every single minute that they worked accurately, to avoid malpractice and getting disbarred.

It is an underappreciated profession, to say the least.. Lawyers work damn hard for the money, and deserve some recognition.

VD- I am sorry if all you (most likely) ever got was a shitty Public Defender, but those guys are so overworked and underpaid it is ridiculous. Supreme Court Justices, on the other hand, are most certainly not working 80 hour weeks to try to take care of all those cases that get tossed in the shredder.. And if they SAY they do, they definitely do not have to account for those hours on a time sheet.

JD_2B, I have nothing against lawyers, and I think they provide a very useful service. And some of them will push the limits of the law and enable society to move in great directions. Some of them defend people which wouldn't normally get the defense they should always have access to (i.e. a good defense by a hard working advocate).

My problem is more with people thinking that Supreme Court justices are useless, or don't do anything, or are there to "remove the liberty of the very people who pay their salary".

That's awfully wrong. The SCOTUS has had many forward thinking justices who did anything but "remove the liberty of the very people who pay their salary". I think we often don't understand the hard work they do and simply throw stuff around like the quote I copy-pasted twice already.

Oh really? Oh I am sincerely sorry for being a bitch then, and that comment I made about you having a public defender..

You can see why I would be highly defensive on this topic..

I also agree with you- They do work very hard. I have no idea how many hours they work in a week- I was only pointing out that they don't have to keep track of their hours, also. Just talking points, you know how it is.. =)

And yeah- that comment someone made about "removing the liberty of those who pay their salaries", was a low-blow.. People just don't seem to understand that the Supreme Court is in place as a form of checks and balances- much more so than some kind of all powerful panel.

 

[Varth Dader]

Yes, because every illegitimate power the federal government takes is either taken from the state governments or from the people themselves. Wars, treaties, etc... are actually in the Constitution, which means they were powers ceded to the federal government. Now if you want to argue that those powers have been abused that's another story.

I think what you are saying is incomplete. So called power grab also give rights to the people themselves.

Plus, you seem to think there is a clear line of where state power ends and federal power starts, which is not true.

 

[JD_2B]

Yes, because every illegitimate power the federal government takes is either taken from the state governments or from the people themselves. Wars, treaties, etc... are actually in the Constitution, which means they were powers ceded to the federal government. Now if you want to argue that those powers have been abused that's another story.

I think what you are saying is incomplete. So called power grab also give rights to the people themselves.

Plus, you seem to think there is a clear line of where state power ends and federal power starts, which is not true.

I have no doubt at all that Kevin has some specific issue in mind.. Kevin, do you mind getting specific here? I would love to discuss what SPECIFIC LIBERTIES you are proclaiming that the feds have taken..

(With the exception of the Patriot Act, of course.. which would have been struck down by congress (state reps) if not for the whole psychological warfare issue surrounding 9/11- but that is a different topic all together.)

)