July 26, 2005
Tired of the Rhetoric
I am so tired of all of the rhetoric surrounding the nomination of a new justice for the U.S. Supreme Court.
I am reading a new book entitled "Electing Justice" which argues that we should elect our justices to the Supreme Court. In the book the author talks about previous decisions about who to nominate and whether it should be a woman or a minority, a liberal or a conservative, and the thought that kept coming to my mind was that it should not matter. It should not matter if the court is composed of 9 women, or 9 hispanics, or 9 African-Americans, or 9 conservatives or 9 liberals. The reason it should not matter is because a judges job is to apply the law, not make law, and I would argue not even interpret the Constitution. If judges simply applied the law as they should we would not have to worry about who it was that the president nominated. This will never happen but it would sure be nice.
Posted by Nathan Melton at July 26, 2005 12:07 AMWho should interpret the Constitution?
It’s not as simple as saying “apply the law,” as if there is only one ‘correct’ way to do so.
The 8th amendment reads:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
What is “excessive” bail? What is a “cruel and unusual punishment?”
Posted by: mattLaw at July 26, 2005 12:37 AMNathan, your views are over two hundred years out of sync with legal precedent. Marbury Vs. Madison established long ago the right of the courts to interpret the law, including the constitution, and their right to resolve conflicts of lower level law by applying higher level law.
They are also out of sync with the reality of the every day, which defeats any attempt to codify right and wrong fully. Judges need the authority to interpret law, because their judgment can spell the difference between an open loophole and a blind alley for those arguing rhetorically clever, but hollowly cynical arguments. As for electing judges, just think of what would happen if the opposition party gained a majority. That’ll put that thought to rest rather quickly.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 26, 2005 12:43 AMNathan:
There is a reason why humans not machines are made Judges.
As for Electing Supreme Court Judges, this is a lifetime post. Do you want Arnold Swagge-whatever a Justice for Life?
Posted by: Aldous at July 26, 2005 01:12 AMYep, I agree, I want well qualified people on the court and if they are all of one gender or race - so be it. It should not matter.
Posted by: Mike T. at July 26, 2005 07:03 AMNathan:
In a perfect world, your solution works. Of course, in a world that perfect, a Supreme Court might not even be necessary, since people would work equally for the good of all in a Xanadu-like existence.
Unfortunately, honorable men and women can disagree over interpretation of law. There are honorable men and women through the years who have honestly viewed certain laws simply through the lens of a different viewpoint, though not out of any particular agenda. The problem now is that laws ARE viewed through an agenda, and therefore the selection process is also viewed through those agendas. The arguments thrown forth by both parties would be neatly reversed had the outcome of the Presidential election also been reversed.
Were John Kerry choosing a Justice with a more liberal ideology, the left would be singing praises while the right would be launching attacks. The arguments would be the same, but hoisted by the opposite sides that are hoisting them currently.
Of course, the ideology of the SCOTUS moves on the liberal/conservative spectrum every time a Justice is replaced. The direction is defined mostly by the occupant of the White House, with some oversight by Congress. Because justices are appointed for life,they are free to act upon their own consciences and to evolve to their own position on that spectrum.
This is not a weakness of the system, but rather the sheer genius of it.
Posted by: joebagodontus at July 26, 2005 08:42 AMYou know we’re all in trouble when we look to lawyers to solve our problems.
________________________________________________
NOTE: No profession, race, gender, class, or level of wealth, etc. should be denigrated. This merely points out that parasites are attracted to some professions (e.g. politics, lawyers, clergy, government, insurance, etc.) more so than others (fire fighter, paramedic, nurse, engineer, etc.)
________________________________________________
C’mon….more ‘lawyer bashing?’
Many past Supreme Court Justices were some of the greatest minds of their time.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 26, 2005 12:00 PMThe idea that it is not the job of judges to make law is the result of popular misunderstanding of our legal system.
Judges make law. This law is called “case law”, or “common law”, and is also referred to as “legal precedent”. It is different from statutory law, which is law created through legislative process. It is one of the four main sources of civil law. Jagnet.army.mil
There is further information on common law towards the bottom of that page, though you may have to expand it to view it, the layout is somewhat odd.
Posted by: Jarandhel at July 26, 2005 01:04 PM“There is no shortage of lawyers in Washington, D.C. In fact, there may be more lawyers than people.” - Sandra Day O’Connor
“The mere title of lawyer is sufficient to deprive a man of the public confidence…The most innocent and irreproachable life cannot guard a lawyer against the hatred of his fellow citizens.” - John Quincy Adams, 1787
“A man who never graduated from school might steal from a freight car. But a man who attends college and graduates as a lawyer might steal the whole railroad.” - President Theodore Roosevelt
“I think the law is really a humbug and a benefit principally to lawyers.” - Henry David Thoreau
“I used to be a lawyer, but now I am a reformed character.” - Woodrow Wilson
“Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the market-places and have the most important seats in the synogogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses….” - Luke 20:46-47
“Necessity knows no law; I know some attorneys of the same.” - Benjamin Franklin
“Among attorneys in Tennessee the saying is: When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.” - Al Gore
A lawyer walks into a doctor’s office with a toad on his head. The doctor says “What can I do for you?” The toads says, “How about cutting this wart off my ass?” - The Toad
Which of the following involved in WaterGate were lawyers?
(1) Richard Nixon
(2) John Mitchell
(3) Spiro T. Agnew
(4) G. Gordon Liddy
(5) John Dean
(6) Charles Colson
(7) Robert Mardian
(8) Herbert Kalmbach
(9) John Ehrlichman
(10) Donald Sergretti
ANSWER: all of the above.
________________________________________________
NOTE: No profession, race, gender, class, or level of wealth, etc. should be denigrated. This merely points out that parasites are attracted to some professions (e.g. politics, lawyers, clergy, government, insurance, etc.) more so than others (fire fighter, paramedic, nurse, engineer, etc.)
________________________________________________
Any particular reason why you dislike lawyers so mcuh, d. a. n.? What do you do?
I work with a group of lawyers who get paid very little in order to fulfill the constitutional rights of indigent defendants here in Indiana.
Both of our investigators are former police officers. One of them is ALSO a firefighter. Bad lawyers are the exception, not the rule.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 26, 2005 02:42 PMmattLaw,
Not all lawyers are bad. Just like any profession. And, perhaps they do good sometimes too.
The problem though, is that some professions have the capacity for great harm.
Especially, when they are in-league with
government (e.g. police, lawyers, politicians, clergy, etc.). It’s hard to argue that fewer crimes are committed by fire fighters, paramedics, nurses, etc., than crimes committed by lawyers and politicians.
BTW, I’m an electrical/software engineer. I research, design, and develop, and sell SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) systems (sensors, hardware, software, etc.).
I once worked at a large law firm (not as a lawyer, in the IT department). It was quite an education. The theft and law breaking was rampant. 18 months was all I could stand, otherwise, become an accomplice to certain crimes. In fact, I quit, and reported the crimes to authorities. I received threats, so I warned all my friends and family that if anything happened to me, they should know who to suspect first.
NOTE: Still, I’m not saying all lawyers are bad…just merely pointing out that parasites are attracted to some professions (e.g. politics, lawyers, clergy, government, insurance, etc.) more so than others (fire fighter, paramedic, nurse, engineer, etc.).
For example, Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees with the following statistics:
(X) 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
(X) 7 have been arrested for fraud
(X) 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
(X) 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
(X) 3 have done time for assault
(X) 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
(X) 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
(X) 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
(X) 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
(X) 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year…
(X) 1 is a former KKK member.
(X) 1 was driving drunk, drove off a bridge, and killed a woman
Can you guess which organization this is?
It’s the 535 members of the United States Congress;
the same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
So, you see…there’s ample justification to have a questionable opinion of lawyers and politicians (in general). Only a fool wouldn’t.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 26, 2005 03:21 PMBTW, I’m an electrical/software engineer. I research, design, and develop, and sell SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) systems (sensors, hardware, software, etc.).
How did I guess that you’d include your own profession in the list of ‘good’ ones.
I once worked at a large law firm (not as a lawyer, in the IT department). It was quite an education. The theft and law breaking was rampant. 18 months was all I could stand, otherwise, become an accomplice to certain crimes. In fact, I quit, and reported the crimes to authorities. I received threats, so I warned all my friends and family that if anything happened to me, they should know who to suspect first.
Then you worked for a pretty bad company. Making vast generalizations based on anecdotal evidence is usually not a good idea…
For example, Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees with the following statistics: (X) 29 have been accused of spousal abuse (X) 7 have been arrested for fraud (X) 19 have been accused of writing bad checks (X) 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses (X) 3 have done time for assault (X) 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit (X) 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges (X) 8 have been arrested for shoplifting (X) 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits (X) 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year… (X) 1 is a former KKK member. (X) 1 was driving drunk, drove off a bridge, and killed a woman Can you guess which organization this is? It’s the 535 members of the United States Congress; the same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.So, you see…there’s ample justification to have a questionable opinion of lawyers and politicians (in general). Only a fool wouldn’t.
Less that 50% of the politicians that make up the 109th Congress are lawyers. The two are not interchangeable. If you can present any evidence that lawyers, as a profession, are involved in lawbreaking more than any other segment of the population, I’d like to see it.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 26, 2005 03:33 PMmattLaw,
If you’re one of the good guys, then you should not take offense.
If you’re not one of the good guys, then I understand you being offended.
At any rate, I just gave lots of evidence.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Do you really want to be their defender?
But, you’re missing the point.
I already stated several times that no profession, race, gender, class, or level of wealth, etc. should be denigrated. The evidence merely points out that parasites are attracted to some professions (e.g. politics, lawyers, clergy, government, insurance, etc.) more so than others (fire fighter, paramedic, nurse, engineer, etc.).
Posted by: d.a.n at July 26, 2005 03:44 PMJarandehl,
Juries make law, too. If you disagree, suggest you pick up a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird.
Matt & dan,
Lawyers, like the laws themselves, are a necessary evil for a civilized society.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 26, 2005 03:51 PMYes, “To Kill a Mockingbird” is a classic.
Gregory Peck was a good lawyer, trapped in a corrupt system. Yes, the jury in that movie was bad. And we’ve seen some other very bad juries in recent times too.
Yes, Chuck…inherently law is an important, value-producing profession. Honest, principled, and competent lawyers and politicians do exist.
And among lawyers and judges, some powerful, integrating, legal minds also exist.
But today, in our diseased society, law and politics are by far some of the most susceptible professions for following lazy, dishonest routes to prosperity and respect. Many, if not most lawyers today have rationalized themselves into that lazy destructive mode of unearned money and power. As a result, many lawyers can no longer grasp the concept of honesty, much less practice fully integrated honesty. In fact, most such lawyers and politicians have lost the ability to even think in an integrated manner. Often they become little more than glib spouters adept mainly at manipulating money usurpations through destructive legal actions.
mattLaw,
I’m not saying all lawyers are bad, nor is the profession bad. I’m saying it is susceptible and attracts bad people. Would you disagree with that ?
mattLaw, If you’re one of the good guys, then you should not take offense. If you’re not one of the good guys, then I understand you being offended.
Comments about lawyers implicate ALL lawyers. Don’t try to hide behind your generalizations by claiming they’re only directed at the ‘bad’ guys. That’s a pretty weak argument tactic.
At any rate, I just gave lots of evidence. The evidence is overwhelming. Do you really want to be their defender?
You didn’t give any “evidence” at all!
You listed (without sourcing) some alleged characteristics of members of our Congress…of which less than half are lawyers, anyway. That is FAR from showing that lawyers are less law-abiding than the public at large.
But, you’re missing the point.I already stated several times that no profession, race, gender, class, or level of wealth, etc. should be denigrated. The evidence merely points out that parasites are attracted to some professions (e.g. politics, lawyers, clergy, government, insurance, etc.) more so than others (fire fighter, paramedic, nurse, engineer, etc.).
Uggh…enough with that. Once was enough. If I posted several comments generalizing about a certain race and tacked on your cute ‘disclaimer’ at the end, do you think the veracity of my argument wouldn’t still be questioned?
Many, if not most lawyers today have rationalized themselves into that lazy destructive mode of unearned money and power. As a result, many lawyers can no longer grasp the concept of honesty, much less practice fully integrated honesty. In fact, most such lawyers and politicians have lost the ability to even think in an integrated manner. Often they become little more than glib spouters adept mainly at manipulating money usurpations through destructive legal actions.
First of all, you have absolutely no evidence to show that you’re comments are true for “many” or “most” lawyers. Secondly, “lawyer” does not equal “politician.” Lawyers work in MANY areas, including education, the health care field, corporate business, criminal law, environmental law, entertainment law, Constitutional law, labor law, civil rights law (such as the ACLU) etc., etc., etc.
You’re projecting your opinion of big trial lawyers, personal injury lawyers, and politicians onto an entire profession whose work varies far and wide.
I’m not saying all lawyers are bad, nor is the profession bad. I’m saying it is susceptible and attracts bad people. Would you disagree with that ?
I’d say that ANY profession that offers the possibilities of a large paycheck can lead some down the roads of corruption. Many young people go to law school because they’re intelligent and don’t know what they really want to do with their lives (these are often the ones who end up hating the job, which more than a few lawyers do).
——————-
Sorry, I just can’t stand this type of generalizing, though I’ve found it quite prevalent on this board (on BOTH sides of the political aisle, so-to-speak).
Congress…of which less than half are lawyers, anyway.
That’s a pretty large percentage.
But, still, that doesn’t mean all lawyers are bad, nor does it mean the profession is bad.
That’s not the point at all.
Refusing to see that some professions attract bad sorts more so than other professions (for obvious reasons) is refusing to see the truth, which is the point.
mattLaw,
At any rate, can you tell me why the perception of lawyers and politicians is so vastly different (i.e. more negative) than that of other professions? Say, fire fighter, or paramedic, or nurse, doctor ?
There’s a reason for it. Perhaps, those in the law profession should think about that, and how to police their own ranks better. Same goes for politicians too.
_______________________________________________
“Apologists for the profession contend that lawyers are as honest as other men, but this is not very encouraging.” - Ferdinand Lundberg
“Why are lawyers thought of so badly?
Why are we found near the bottom of nearly every public opinion ranking of occupations? The answer is simple: Because we deserve it!” - Alan M. Dershowitz
“The minute you read something and you can’t understand it, you can almost be sure that it was drawn up by a lawyer.” - Will Rogers
“When there are too many lawyers, ther can be no justice.” — Lin Yutang
QUESTION: How many lawyer jokes really exist?
ANSWER: Just 3. The rest are true.
Nathan,
You do realize you’re over-simplifying the role a Supreme Court judge. I agree with your basic premise that a judge should follow the letter of the law, not twist or manipulate it.
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 26, 2005 05:05 PMRefusing to see that some professions attract bad sorts more so than other professions (for obvious reasons) is refusing to see the truth, which is the point.
…and I already pointed out what that was. MONEY. That doesn’t mean there’s a casual relationship between the two.
At any rate, can you tell me why the perception of lawyers and politicians is so vastly different (i.e. more negative) than that of other professions? Say, fire fighter, or paramedic, or nurse, doctor ?
There’s actually a fair number of people who don’t trust doctors. I hear lots of negative things said about TEACHERS, for christ sake. It likely comes from the fact that lawyers are necessarily involved with any sort of legal conflict, by definition. You get arrested, a cop brings you in and a lawyer presses charges against you. Someone sues you, and they have a lawyer. You sue someone else, and they’ve got a lawyer trying to keep them from paying you. I’d imagine a good amount of the criticism arises from high-profile civil suits, and from the whole ‘ambulance-chaser’ persona that we see portrayed on television commercials.
The fact of the matter is, I doubt most people forgo legal counsel when they’re in trouble, or when a family member is in trouble, or when they’ve been wronged by another individual…simply on the principle of not trusting attorneys.
There’s a reason for it. Perhaps, those in the law profession should think about that, and how to police their own ranks better. Same goes for politicians too.
Are you suggesting that there’s ‘truth’ behind every good generalization of a group of people?
Posted by: mattLaw at July 26, 2005 05:18 PMMany young people go to law school because they’re intelligent…
… Hmmm, so how much intelligence is required?
…and don’t know what they really want to do with their lives (these are often the ones who end up hating the job, which more than a few lawyers do).
Why is that? More than a few? You’re building my case for me.
mattLaw,
Who pays you? Tax payers? Clients? You say it’s not for a lot of money? Is that so bad? Would it be better to over charge?
Are you suggesting that there’s ‘truth’ behind every good generalization of a group of people?
No. Not every generalization.
Just those about lawyers and politicians.
Many young people go to law school because they’re intelligent… … Hmmm, so how much intelligence is required?
Law school is quite challenging.
Why is that? More than a few? You’re building my case for me.
…because it’s stressful, often requires long hours, is demanding, and is often tedious work (for those that don’t enjoy it).
mattLaw, Who pays you? Tax payers? Clients? You say it’s not for a lot of money? Is that so bad? Would it be better to over charge?
I’m an unpaid intern. I was pointing out that not every lawyer is in it for the money, I wasn’t complaining about the pay.
The lawyers in my office are paid by the state. Our clients are referred to us because they are poor but are guaranteed legal counsel by the Constitution when facing criminal trial.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 26, 2005 05:34 PMI’m a little confused by your website, by the way.
You trumpet the greatness of the Constitution, but then say (among many other things) that we need to remove the power of the Presidential pardon. I’m assuming you realize that will require an amendment.
You suggest shrinking the government while at the same time demanding it institute many more restrictions upon the populace…many of which will require massive changes to our Constitution.
You go on and on about the “voters” and keep talking about politicians as if they’re a separate entity, when the truth is that we govern ourselves.
Some of your ideas seem good, but any hope to implement them on the national level (instead of focusing on local governments first, where you’re much more likely to find independents) isn’t likely to succeed.
Basically, you seem to have it in for “politicians” and “lawyers.” That’s fine. I’d rather cut government control over my life down to a minimum.
I agree with one thing that you say: there is little difference between the two main political parties in this country.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 26, 2005 05:55 PMmattLaw
a low paid attorney? Never heard of one.
I can tell you of an attorney who quit the profession because he got tired of lying as a normal course of business. It is an accepted norm. The man was a brilliant lawyer and judge. The man is my step-sons father. I know him well.
The best minds are not always the wisest minds. We have witnessed that in our recent past history.
Posted by: tom at July 26, 2005 06:06 PMFor example, Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees with the following statistics:
(X) 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
(X) 7 have been arrested for fraud
(X) 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
(X) 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
(X) 3 have done time for assault
(X) 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
(X) 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
(X) 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
(X) 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
(X) 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year…
(X) 1 is a former KKK member.
(X) 1 was driving drunk, drove off a bridge, and killed a woman
Can you guess which organization this is?
It’s the 535 members of the United States Congress;
the same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
d.a.n
For a miniute there I though you were talking about my county government. But then they only have around 230 employees.
mattLaw a low paid attorney? Never heard of one.
I’ll say it nice and slow again: I work for the Public Defender’s Office in my county. Our clients are our clients because they don’t have any money.
I can tell you of an attorney who quit the profession because he got tired of lying as a normal course of business. It is an accepted norm. The man was a brilliant lawyer and judge. The man is my step-sons father. I know him well.
It’s too bad that he was ‘forced’ to lie. It’s curious to hear that this also occurred in his career as a “judge.”
Posted by: mattLaw at July 26, 2005 06:19 PMYou trumpet the greatness of the Constitution, but then say (among many other things) that we need to remove the power of the Presidential pardon. I’m assuming you realize that will require an amendment.The constitution is not perfect, but there are many wise things in the constitution. Still, it needs a few changes. I would think that you, and juries, would find the Presidential pardon an insult. Clinton abused it to release a lot of felons. What did you think of that?
You suggest shrinking the government while at the same time demanding it institute many more restrictions upon the populace…many of which will require massive changes to our Constitution.Yes, shrink government. No, only a few changes to the constitution are needed (i.e. remove Presidential pardons). No, we don’t need more restrictions. We need better law enforcement, and better enforcement of existing laws.
You go on and on about the “voters” and keep talking about politicians as if they’re a separate entity, when the truth is that we govern ourselves.No, politicians and voters together are responsible, as long as people are able to vote. Several paragraphs state that we’re all responsible. The voters aren’t doing their part and the politicians are irresponsible and unaccountable, and we’re all responsible for it.
Some of your ideas seem good, but any hope to implement them on the national level (instead of focusing on local governments first, where you’re much more likely to find independents) isn’t likely to succeed.Perhaps. Perhaps some independent will build upon the idea. Perhaps not. At any rate, it may be the only peaceful way left to restore a balance of power (not simply shift it) between the people and government.
Basically, you seem to have it in for “politicians” and “lawyers.” That’s fine. I’d rather cut government control over my life down to a minimum.No, I don’t have it in for all politicians and lawyers. Just the bad ones. Unfortunately, some people want to control others, and they often choose specific routes, such as law and politics. Not all lawyers or politicians are bad, but those two professions attract cheaters and parasites. Thus, unfortunately, the professions are tarnished due to that fact. The association is difficult to ignore. Be thankful that some people, like me, still realize that not all lawyers or politicians or those professions are bad.
I agree with one thing that you say: there is little difference between the two main political parties in this country.Good. Partisanship is a clever and divisive distraction from our many pressing problems. I used to be fooled by it, but after a while, you start to see the through it.
I’m an unpaid intern. I was pointing out that not every lawyer is in it for the money, I wasn’t complaining about the pay.The lawyers in my office are paid by the state. Our clients are referred to us because they are poor but are guaranteed legal counsel by the Constitution when facing criminal trial.
So, the tax-payers are getting the bill.
I realize everyone deserves a decent defense, but the legal system is perverted, abused, and the tax payers always get screwed.
Law school is quite challenging.Try some of the following, and then tell me about challenging:
[] Differential Equations
[] Integral Calculus
[] Statics and Dynamics
[] Chemistry
[] AC/DC Circuit Analysis
[] Numerical Methods
[] Matrix Algebra
[] Power Systems
[] Boolean Algebra
[] Descriptive Geometry
[] Thermodynamics
[] Heat Transfer
[] Digital Systems Design
[] Trigonometry
[] Analytical Geometry
[] Linear Systems
[] Computer Programming
[] Microprocessors
[] Electronics, Labs
[] Materials Science
[] Physics
[] Electromagnetics
[] Energy Conversion
[] Radio Frequency Circuit Design
[] Computer Aided Design
mattLaw
excerpts always do work for the one doing the excerpting.
Did I say forced to lie? I must get this computer fixed. After previewing and before posting I did not see that in there.
The one typo was “he got tired of the lying”
As a judge he had to hear lying on a daily basis. All judges do.
I also did not acknowledge you as an attorney.
Just a side note. I was born and raised in St.Joseph County.
The constitution is not perfect, but there are many wise things in the constitution. Still, it needs a few changes. I would think that you, and juries, would find the Presidential pardon an insult. Clinton abused it to release a lot of felons. What did you think of that?
What did I think about that? I thought:
and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
So, the tax-payers are getting the bill. I realize everyone deserves a decent defense, but the legal system is perverted, abused, and the tax payers always get screwed.
You sort of seem to brush aside that “right” to a defense bit…and believe me, in many cities throughout this country the defense one gets from a Public Defender is FAR from “decent.” Public Defenders are usually underfunded, and overworked. Some just are not dedicated to their job. I can personally vouch for the job that my office does, but obviously not for others.
Try some of the following, and then tell me about challenging: [] Differential Equations [] Integral Calculus….etc.
I obviously wasn’t saying that what I’m studying is the ‘most challenging’ nor ‘more challenging’ than whatever it is you do.
I certainly respect the effort and schooling that it took for you to be where you are—please respect mine. The study of law is not easy.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 26, 2005 06:53 PMexcerpts always do work for the one doing the excerpting. Did I say forced to lie? I must get this computer fixed. After previewing and before posting I did not see that in there. The one typo was “he got tired of the lying” As a judge he had to hear lying on a daily basis. All judges do. I also did not acknowledge you as an attorney. Just a side note. I was born and raised in St.Joseph County.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I read it as saying that he was tired of ‘lying’ himself…not of that by other people.
My mistake.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 26, 2005 06:54 PMmattLaw
Even though I disagree with much of what you write, admitting to a mistake is mark of a true man.
The plain truth - gender does not matter on the Supreme Court in either direction. It took courage not to automatically nominate a woman.
Posted by: Elliot Essman at July 28, 2005 11:42 AMHi All:
I really don’t care who is selected to serve, so long as they apply the letter of law in common sense terms 5-4 is a balance we can live with. We that prefer the left tilt now may just have to learn to grin and bear it for a while. I do hope that the right wingers realize that if the court goes too far right there will be open revolt. Let’s just hope that the senate sees that and demand the nominee be a moderate.
Just Passing Gas,
As Always,
Wayne
I think there is a lot less rhetoric going on about Roberts than I expected. The Democrats really don’t seem too upset. There will be some posturing, as all politicians are want to do, but that’s about it. I suspect that there will be only a few who really get upset about the choice. Most will be happy that he wasn’t more radically conservative.
Of course, the MEDIA is trying to make something out of it; but it just isn’t there. Fox news has repeatedly offered up the crying and complaining on the left about the selection. Yet, there are only a couple of quotes that are presented in evidence; and they aren’t too bad.
In reality, it should be a pretty smooth confirmation for the guy. The only thing that will be a problem is the White House refusing to provide information. They’ll be the fly in the ointment on this one.
