Replies

This is silly. MOST Supreme Court justices never write memorable decisions, and MOST vote with a majority or minority in which ONE or TWO great legal minds direct the court. Always has been, always will be.

That's why we need a complete moron on the court, someone barely smart enough to breath but still able to sign her X on legal documents. After all, the clerks do all the work.

I've said it before: one Scalia on the Court is a dream; nine would be a nightmare, because then we'd be back to a original intrepretation of the Constitution, and who needs that?

"...but there is no sign that she has the intellectual depth or sophisticated understanding of the Constitution to seriously challenge the liberal legal mainstream."

What the hell does that mean? All she needs to do is get four votes to side with her and what she says will become law. If she writes enough birthday cards with hearts on them, that ought to be sufficient to sway those stodgy Justices to her side.

She doesn't have to challenge the liberal legal mainstream, all she has to do is be a cipher, a pimple on the butt of jurisprudence, and the left will have to challenge her. If you are a woman and a friend of GW, you don't need brains to be a Supreme Court Justice, no it's all about feeling good about someone. That's why I'm having my heart surgery done by my chiropractor, he's so much more friendly than those guys down at the hospital.

Who cares if the decisions are memorable? They don't have to be. It doesn't matter how they are written. People don't go on the Supreme Court to write brilliantly worded decisions, they go on it to assert power. A decision can be one page long and the effect would be the same. "You win and you lose. Why? Because we say so."

Lawyers and judges have their own little way of talking and they expect everyone else to talk like them and to bow down to the idea that their way is the only way to talk and write about the law. They're full of crap. It is a way to create a technocracy and to convince people that the only ones who are qualified to read and decipher the Constitution are lawyers and judges.

Well, the Constitution is not some freakin' quantum physics textbook. Anyone who can read and anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension skills can figure out what it means and, more importantly, has the right to figure out what it means.

Exactly. Roe was an incoherent, results-oriented statement of "constitutional law." The Miers opinion overturning it might as well be equally incoherent and results-oriented: something like "Roe v. Wade is hereby disapproved as wrongly decided. There are other better ways to define one's own concept of the meaning of life besides obtaining an abortion, which we need not go into here."

Way to re-establish the integrity and legitimacy of constitutional law.

Exactly right. She doesn't have to challenge the libs. She only has to vote the right way, and leave the great decisions to Scalia and Thomas and Roberts.

Sorry, but nine eggheads, even conservative eggheads, is a disaster waiting to happen. You need people with pragmatic, everyday outlooks to know how laws affect real people. As Bill Buckley often said, "I'd trust myself to the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard," and in this case I'd trust the decisions of nine average Americans just as soon as a bunch of "brilliant" legal scholars---of any stripe.

If you are a woman and a friend of GW, you don't need brains to be a Supreme Court Justice, no it's all about feeling good about someone.

And your post isn't all about feelings? You've been told for the last few years that only X, Y and Z will be suitable candidates so you've gone into brain lock at the thought of anyone other than X, Y and Z being nominated.