How many cases did RBG argue before being confirmed? Yeah, I rest my case.
It’s a rather weak case. Feel free to rest it if you want.
2 Likes
If you say so.
Life is a tragedy if you are silly enough to believe the opposite is a possibility.
More than you.
I think @Legalsteel and myself are thinking about the same on Barrett.
While the DEMS have the opportunity to improve their “optics” after the Kavanaugh fiasco…there is a high probability that someone will ask an asinine question or two (that I think Barrett will be more than ready for). Again…I don’t know about her taste for Beer…
With that said; there are legitimate questions:
-
While the Supreme Court isn’t there to answer what will replace the ACA…they sure as hell appear to have the power to severely weaken it; it’s coverage and its provisions. For some that would be a great “Victory”…but I am not holding my breath for the GOP or Trump to have a viable replacement.
-
In terms of Abortion…I don’t really think that RvW will be reversed…but we will end up with access only in about a third of the States in the Union. Make of that what you wish, because I think that it all depends on what “side” you are on.
1 Like
That might be so, but the market values my thoughts exponentially higher than hers.
1 Like
It shows that she was appointed for political reasons,not legal skills. To be fair, that’s every person on SCOTUS not just her.
The market values the thoughts of first year associates at big city law firms more than federal judges, as compared by salary. And? Are these associates who have zero experience more valuable than a wisened appellate judge in our system of justice who decided really important issues on the nation’s behalf? Of course not.
The market isn’t the divine arbiter of all value.
1 Like
Oh it’s nakedly political, that much is certain. Every Trump GOP candidate has been a federalist society pick.
That said? Most of the court could be making far more money elsewhere.
Good appellate judges aren’t necessarily the lawyers with the most courtroom experience, and that is especially true of SCOTUS. Oral arguments rarely move the needle - it’s all briefing and analysis, which has little to do with “arguing cases.”
The Truth is that most individuals who set their sites early on becoming a Supreme Court Justice appear to:
- Love Constitutional Law; Constitutional Law and History; teaching law (especially Constitutional Law); and the more “scholarly” aspects of Law. When they take on things like Appellate Judgeships; they realize that is just a necessary step in their progression.
I am sure that historically there are exceptions in that some do it to feed their egos…but I think that is the exception, not the rule.
- Many have been with High-Powered Law firms…but it seems only briefly. Playing the games of “Boston Legal” ,“LA Law” or “The Good Wife” just doesn’t appear to be what motivates most of them.
1 Like
Correct me if I’m wrong, @thunderbolt23…but a lot of SCOTUS decisions are extremely “narrow” in that they “answer” only very narrow questions.
It seems to me like its the public who then runs with it as if they give us the Ten Commandments from the Heavens.
Now…that is NOT to say that some of these narrow decisions don’t have implications (especially for the lower Courts and their citing of “precedent”)…or in the next few months questions on abortion access and the ACA; but more often than not; the SCOTUS appear to answer only small pieces of much larger puzzles.
Yes, completely. People misunderstand what SCOTUS does and exaggerate it. Doesn’t mean SCOTUS isn’t important, it is - but 85% of what it does doesn’t affect the vast majority of people at all.
1 Like
No Supreme Court answers a broad question willingly. Take even supposed sea change decisions (I have Hobby Lobby in mind here), the actual ruling is extremely narrow.
The majority was at great pains to make it specific to that particular type of closely held company, and spent tens of pages to make clear that it wasn’t just any company that would have succeeded.
2 Likes
Yes. Good point, and great example.
The SCOTUS probably understands the American Public; U.S. Companies; and yes, the Constitution better than most. Something not worded precisely and within the confines of the question they are meant to answer could have disastrous consequences.
And I think that most Justices probably go in understanding that. (At least I hope so!)
1 Like
We aren’t talking about groceries.
Congrats @Legalsteel on your nuptials! I am glad you found someone to love and spend the rest of your life with. But @treco is right, no more D&D (never played but got nothing against it) or whatever it is you like to do on your own. No more friends, no more camping, no more buying what you want with your own money, no more going out, without her. No more walking in your house after a long hard day at work and sitting in a worse than usual traffic jam and just walking through the door to find peace and quiet, cracking a beer and drooling in front of the TV for a couple of hours. No more parties… without her. You know that Challenger Hellcat Red-eye Widebody you’ve been saving up for? That is going to a family friendly SUV with good millage. And with in mere years it will be dented, full of Cheerios and smell like baby powder-saliva-sour milk and covered in dog hair from her dog.
It’s going to be great because for a couple years, you will get to have lots of sex.
Perhaps, I should offer condolences? Ah, Amore! 
EDIT: It is @Legalsteel NOT @thunderbolt23 who is getting married. The message remains the same though!
1 Like
But they, for the most part, could not hack it in the private sector.
Actually, that’s precisely what the market is.