[PISANO]

I agree with you. There is GOOD reason our founding fathers did NOT enshrine into the Constitution a PRE-REQUISITE for a JUSTICE to be a LAWYER.

They KNEW what they were doing. Too bad it is NOW MANDATORY [by practicality] that not only does one have to be a LAWYER like Harriet Miers BUT has to be a friggin genius like Roberts, who can cite every case from memory, in order to get on the bench.

I believe that we owe all of this to Marbury v Madison.

[andyk]

I believe that we owe all of this to Marbury v Madison.

There's no doubt in my mind that the invention of judicial review paved the way to the judicial arrogance we see today.

[GSlob]

Ha. Imagine a layman sitting there. Incomprehensible [to a layman] gobbledygook is flying thick and fast, so what is one to do? To keep one's mouth shut, to nod wisely, and always agree with somebody else who [hopefully] knows what's going on? And one would have to place absolute trust in one's staffers and clerks that they do not [which will be very easy for them] turn such a layman justice into a laughingstock and butt of jokes. An extremely undignified situation, IMHO.