[Reactionary]

Only someone who buys into the liberals' view of Supreme Court justices as philosopher-kings could hold legal training irrelevant to a job on the Supreme Court."

I don't get the logic here. The Constitution is not an obscure document. Yet we're supposed to believe that high-end legal training is required to understand it and "interpret" it.

It isn't. And in case Ms. Coulter is unfamiliar with Platonic thought, the philosopher-kings had to be compelled to rule the just city. That city was established "in speech," not in deed. And the Republic, taken as a whole, not only shows the limits of rhetoric, it is the most searing indictment of political idealism ever made.

[BushMeister]

I don't get the logic here. The Constitution is not an obscure document. Yet we're supposed to believe that high-end legal training is required to understand it and "interpret" it.

This may come as a shock to you, but far more than the text of the Constitution is studied by Supreme Court justices in the performance of their duties, and in the formation of their opinions.