Replies

This chat that Consitutional interpretative jurispurdence is just so simple, and any mechanic can do it, is posted by those who are not lawyers, almost invariably. Words are ambiguous, the legislative history often is as well, or more typically non existent, particulary when it comes to Constitutional words, we have stare decisis, and the issue of when to honor it or not, and sometimes clauses in the Consitution or statutes that are inconsistent with each other, or in tension with each other. That is why anglo saxon jurispudence relies so much on the common law, and precendent. It is just something that was needed and required. Awareness of ignorance is the first step to knowledge. So many have not yet taken the first step.

So says this elitist. Bite me. LOL.

I run very little these days, just enough for old times sake. I have been relegated to the stationary bike because I can't get any of my Docs to drain my knees anymore. The bike and carrying my clubs up and down the hills of New England keep me moving in the right direction, upright.

However, I am exercised on the Miers thing and your last post didn't help much. The notion that only you and your guild can be entrusted with the plain language of the US Constitution is belied by the havoc your guild has wreaked on it.

I understand that much of the work done by SCOTUS is mundane crap and have a solution for that. A SCOTUS dedicated to the mundane legal stuff staffed by mundane lawyers. And then the new SCOTUS can be staffed by a pool of Americas best and brightest which encompasses some 150 million folks rather than the million or so who have passed the bar exam.

And now for a comment on judicial hearings. I am thoroughly amused by the imminent reversal in a large segment of FR on how judicial hearings should be conducted. As you know I have favored a more vigorous approach with the nominee being required to answer all questions except questions on how a case currently or shortly will be before the court. My amusement comes from the vast numbers of freepers who have acquired that position since the Roberts hearing in which they took the exact opposite position.