Too Many Lawyers?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

How have those checks and balances worked out so far? Not very good I'd say.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

If you read the 10th Amendment it is true.

 

[JD_2B]

How have those checks and balances worked out so far? Not very good I'd say.

I'm happy..

I am a female who votes, and can have an abortion by legal and safe means, I get property rights, including during a divorce, I can work, can and do own businesses, and I can marry a man of any race or religion, without hearing so much as a peep from some idiot standing behind the clerk of the court's countertop..

I also do not have to worry NEARLY as much about being bought and forced into slavery (sex trafficking is still prominent, but thankfully I never had to endure any position of unpaid servitude, much less the sexual kind) and my name can be withheld from transcripts if I want to remain anonymous if and when a motherfucker decides to rape my drop-dead-beautiful self. (Not that I ever needed this, either- I got marine combat skillz when I was in the Navy, ha) And I sure as hell no longer have to worry about societal pressures placed on my own child to work in a field or a sweatshop, at the ripe young age of 5 or 6.

I say the checks and balances of SCOTUS have overall been working DAMNED WELL.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How have those checks and balances worked out so far? Not very good I'd say.

I'm happy..

I am a female who votes, and can have an abortion by legal and safe means, I get property rights, including during a divorce, I can work, can and do own businesses, and I can marry a man of any race or religion, without hearing so much as a peep from some idiot standing behind the clerk of the court's countertop..

I also do not have to worry NEARLY as much about being bought and forced into slavery (sex trafficking is still prominent, but thankfully I never had to endure any position of unpaid servitude, much less the sexual kind) and my name can be withheld from transcripts if I want to remain anonymous if and when a motherfucker decides to rape my drop-dead-beautiful self. (Not that I ever needed this, either- I got marine combat skillz when I was in the Navy, ha) And I sure as hell no longer have to worry about societal pressures placed on my own child to work in a field or a sweatshop, at the ripe young age of 5 or 6.

I say the checks and balances of SCOTUS have overall been working DAMNED WELL.

The checks and balances system was designed so that no one branch of government could try to give itself more power, thus creating a competition of sorts to restrict all three. Well what really happened is that all three branches simply worked together to grow all of their power as a whole. Check and balances on its own is a miserable failure and has not restricted the growth of government.

 

[JD_2B]

How have those checks and balances worked out so far? Not very good I'd say.

I'm happy..

I am a female who votes, and can have an abortion by legal and safe means, I get property rights, including during a divorce, I can work, can and do own businesses, and I can marry a man of any race or religion, without hearing so much as a peep from some idiot standing behind the clerk of the court's countertop..

I also do not have to worry NEARLY as much about being bought and forced into slavery (sex trafficking is still prominent, but thankfully I never had to endure any position of unpaid servitude, much less the sexual kind) and my name can be withheld from transcripts if I want to remain anonymous if and when a motherfucker decides to rape my drop-dead-beautiful self. (Not that I ever needed this, either- I got marine combat skillz when I was in the Navy, ha) And I sure as hell no longer have to worry about societal pressures placed on my own child to work in a field or a sweatshop, at the ripe young age of 5 or 6.

I say the checks and balances of SCOTUS have overall been working DAMNED WELL.

The checks and balances system was designed so that no one branch of government could try to give itself more power, thus creating a competition of sorts to restrict all three. Well what really happened is that all three branches simply worked together to grow all of their power as a whole. Check and balances on its own is a miserable failure and has not restricted the growth of government.

That is the most anarchist heap of brown slimy goo I have heard all day on here, lol

Checks and Balances works- The president can and does sign executive orders- those can be vetoed by a Congressional vote. If one state fucks a case up, and does not recognize constitutional rights, the U.S. S.C. fixes it. When a slimeball tries to take an office in any administration, the heat is put on him or her, and he is pretty much forced to retire, so as not to allow corruption in government, etc..

How do you respond, without being so vague??? C'mon.. Try to give me a real argument here.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm happy..

I am a female who votes, and can have an abortion by legal and safe means, I get property rights, including during a divorce, I can work, can and do own businesses, and I can marry a man of any race or religion, without hearing so much as a peep from some idiot standing behind the clerk of the court's countertop..

I also do not have to worry NEARLY as much about being bought and forced into slavery (sex trafficking is still prominent, but thankfully I never had to endure any position of unpaid servitude, much less the sexual kind) and my name can be withheld from transcripts if I want to remain anonymous if and when a motherfucker decides to rape my drop-dead-beautiful self. (Not that I ever needed this, either- I got marine combat skillz when I was in the Navy, ha) And I sure as hell no longer have to worry about societal pressures placed on my own child to work in a field or a sweatshop, at the ripe young age of 5 or 6.

I say the checks and balances of SCOTUS have overall been working DAMNED WELL.

The checks and balances system was designed so that no one branch of government could try to give itself more power, thus creating a competition of sorts to restrict all three. Well what really happened is that all three branches simply worked together to grow all of their power as a whole. Check and balances on its own is a miserable failure and has not restricted the growth of government.

That is the most anarchist heap of brown slimy goo I have heard all day on here, lol

Checks and Balances works- The president can and does sign executive orders- those can be vetoed by a Congressional vote. If one state fucks a case up, and does not recognize constitutional rights, the U.S. S.C. fixes it. When a slimeball tries to take an office in any administration, the heat is put on him or her, and he is pretty much forced to retire, so as not to allow corruption in government, etc..

How do you respond, without being so vague??? C'mon.. Try to give me a real argument here.

If that's a representation of anarchism in your mind then you obviously don't know what that term means either.

 

[JD_2B]

If you don't understand the concept of a representative government having the power to represent, I dont know what else to tell ya.

 

[Toro]

I agree with him.

There was a study done 15-20 years ago that estimated that if the number of law students doubled, it would permanently lower GDP by 0.25%. That's astonishing.

 

[JD_2B]

This guy says about that same thing, but he is an instructor at a law school...

ABA Young Lawyers Division

He also says:

For example, the average income of a solo practitioner in the United States in 2004 was less than $46,000—about a 30 percent decline, in real dollars, compared to the previous generation.

However, this is a farce..

Lawyer Salary - CBsalary.com

The national average for a lawyer is currently in the triple digits.

Furthermore, there seems to be a satisfying increase in legal jobs.

Law Crossing.com - Legal Jobs, Legal Employment, Paralegal Jobs, Law Jobs, Legal Recruiters – Law Crossing

One should simply not base their opinions or superstitions on a single article or blog post.. =)

 

[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.

If you read the 10th Amendment it is true.

This is the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now let me ask you this question. State X decides that all trucks on its highway should have mudguards that are in the shape of an oval and not rectangular.

In your opinion, is there a constitutional problem here? Can the Federal government tell that state that this rule isn't acceptable.

(Hint -- search for the word Mudflaps in the Constitution)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

If you read the 10th Amendment it is true.

This is the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now let me ask you this question. State X decides that all trucks on its highway should have mudguards that are in the shape of an oval and not rectangular.

In your opinion, is there a constitutional problem here? Can the Federal government tell that state that this rule isn't acceptable.

(Hint -- search for the word Mudflaps in the Constitution)

This is a ridiculous scenario that serves no purpose and would never happen.

 

[JD_2B]

If the federal government has already enacted some legislation that makes truck drivers have rectangular flaps, specifically- then the states have to just deal- grin and bear it.

The thing about being in a group is that you do have to give up certain possibilities that the individual would prefer. In this case, the individual is the state.

We do still live in the UNITED States, correct? Being such, we are, all 50 of us, bound by federal laws, also.

 

[Varth Dader]

If you read the 10th Amendment it is true.

This is the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now let me ask you this question. State X decides that all trucks on its highway should have mudguards that are in the shape of an oval and not rectangular.

In your opinion, is there a constitutional problem here? Can the Federal government tell that state that this rule isn't acceptable.

(Hint -- search for the word Mudflaps in the Constitution)

This is a ridiculous scenario that serves no purpose and would never happen.

Nice way to avoid answering.

In any event, even if it would never happen, you can nonetheless answer the question. Is this situation a problem?

 

[JD_2B]

Varth- I answered.. =)

 

[Varth Dader]

Varth- I answered.. =)

But you are not Kevin_Kennedy.

By the way Kevin, here is a link to Oyez on a case you might find interesting. Or maybe I created a fake entry just to drive you crazy. Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc., U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc
Facts of the Case:
The Illinois legislature adopted a law requiring all trucks and trailers traveling on the state's highways to operate with contour mudguards. The legislators believed that this specific type of mudguard would protect motorists by preventing trucks from throwing debris into the windshields of passing or trailing vehicles.

Question:
Did a law which required a specific type of rear mudguard on trucks and trailers operated on Illinois's state highways conflict with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution?

Conclusion:
Yes. The Court held that the Illinois requirement did place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. While arguing that safety measures "carry a strong presumption of validity when challenged," Justice Douglas nevertheless affirmed that if the effect of such measures are "slight or problematical" then the interests of commerce should prevail. Since the Illinois law was unlike the requirements of almost all of the other states in the nation, the Court found that it did place a great burden on the interstate transport of goods.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Navajo Freight Lines Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

 

[Ringel05]

Anyone who lives in and around the DC metro area can attest to the fact there are to many lawyers. We live in the lawyer capital of the world.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the federal government has already enacted some legislation that makes truck drivers have rectangular flaps, specifically- then the states have to just deal- grin and bear it.

The thing about being in a group is that you do have to give up certain possibilities that the individual would prefer. In this case, the individual is the state.

We do still live in the UNITED States, correct? Being such, we are, all 50 of us, bound by federal laws, also.

The federal government would have no authority to make truck drivers have rectangular flaps.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now let me ask you this question. State X decides that all trucks on its highway should have mudguards that are in the shape of an oval and not rectangular.

In your opinion, is there a constitutional problem here? Can the Federal government tell that state that this rule isn't acceptable.

(Hint -- search for the word Mudflaps in the Constitution)

This is a ridiculous scenario that serves no purpose and would never happen.

Nice way to avoid answering.

In any event, even if it would never happen, you can nonetheless answer the question. Is this situation a problem?

Yes, I have a problem answering nonsensical hypothetical scenarios which inevitably change as we get deeper into a discussion about them. Forgive me if I pass on partaking in a pointless discussion.

 

[JD_2B]

Varth- I answered.. =)

But you are not Kevin_Kennedy.

By the way Kevin, here is a link to Oyez on a case you might find interesting. Or maybe I created a fake entry just to drive you crazy. Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc., U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc
Facts of the Case:
The Illinois legislature adopted a law requiring all trucks and trailers traveling on the state's highways to operate with contour mudguards. The legislators believed that this specific type of mudguard would protect motorists by preventing trucks from throwing debris into the windshields of passing or trailing vehicles.

Question:
Did a law which required a specific type of rear mudguard on trucks and trailers operated on Illinois's state highways conflict with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution?

Conclusion:
Yes. The Court held that the Illinois requirement did place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. While arguing that safety measures "carry a strong presumption of validity when challenged," Justice Douglas nevertheless affirmed that if the effect of such measures are "slight or problematical" then the interests of commerce should prevail. Since the Illinois law was unlike the requirements of almost all of the other states in the nation, the Court found that it did place a great burden on the interstate transport of goods.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Navajo Freight Lines Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

Ah yes and this decision is valid. And I don't have to be Kevin to answer.. You ask, WE answer. Those who can, should. I already said this very thing, anyways.

This decision makes sense, because the state of Illinois was imposing a restriction upon truck drivers that would potentially interfere with free trade (even if that trade was domestic).

Again, the judicial system INTERPRETS the law- that means that if the law is found to be hokey (like this one was, by splitting hairs and being completely ridiculous- an asinine request made by the state) and is not practical when weighted against the Constitution (Yes the articles of confederation DO count as constitutional, LOL) then that law will be deemed null and void.

Gosh..

Now, why is it that you have a problem with someone other then KEV answering???

 

[Varth Dader]

This is a ridiculous scenario that serves no purpose and would never happen.

Nice way to avoid answering.

In any event, even if it would never happen, you can nonetheless answer the question. Is this situation a problem?

Yes, I have a problem answering nonsensical hypothetical scenarios which inevitably change as we get deeper into a discussion about them. Forgive me if I pass on partaking in a pointless discussion.

Did you notice that what you describe as a "nonsensical hypothetical scenario" is actually based on a real case that was really decided by the real SCOTUS?