On Judge Alito, the San Francisco Chronicle is Unfit to be a Newspaper

I don't know why it is that people think they can read a few cases, think up a theory that coincides with their political ideas, and declare that they (no, really and truly they do!) understand the practice of law, particularly a specialized area like constitutional law.

We see these folks trying to represent themselves in court much too frequently. It is pitiful. In 25 years in the trenches, I have NEVER seen a pro se litigant prevail . . . although occasionally they manage to survive a motion to dismiss. More often, they get socked with penalties and attorney fees for wasting everybody's time. (Like that fellow that Ted Kennedy is touting as the magic bullet for Judge AliOto . . . he's a hardy perennial down at Federal Square.)

I guess it's the same impulse that makes folks attempt to practice medicine on themselves with all kinds of quack nostrums. People put themselves in serious debt to go to medical school and law school. If it were as easy as reading a few cases and textbooks, the schools would be empty.

And by the way, Congressman, I concur fully in your opinion of Judge Napolitano. He's not a dummy, but he's no constitutional lawyer.

I don't know why it is that people think they can read a few cases, think up a theory that coincides with their political ideas, and declare that they (no, really and truly they do!) understand the practice of law, particularly a specialized area like constitutional law.

I don't know why it is people think they know everything about someone from a few postings. No, I have not attended a school of law. However, I have followed the SCOTUS rulings for quite sometime and studied the history of the court. I also don't know why someone can't respond to a simple request. To prove that Roberts and Alito are as libertarian (or believers in federalism if the word suits you better) as Thomas and Brown.

It is not a few cases. Of course I don't claim with no evidence I've argued First Amendment cases in front of SCOTUS for 30 years either. Would my claim be more accepted by a Republican like yourself if I stated, almost baselessly, that I worked hand in hand with Ronald Reagan's campaign manager because I voted for him? Should I use that as a tagline now? Will that gain me 'street cred' in your eyes? You know I've been thinking lately about running for office here in NC, maybe against Richard Burr. Yeah that's it....

I guess it's the same impulse that makes folks attempt to practice medicine on themselves with all kinds of quack nostrums.

Oh yes it's exactly the same. Whereas medicine is an objective science, where the wrong move can kill someone, constitutional law is to a large extent subjective. If it weren't cases wouldn't be overturned 50 years later because a judge has decided he's found a new right in the Constitution that no one else has been able to find.

And by the way, Congressman, I concur fully in your opinion of Judge Napolitano. He's not a dummy, but he's no constitutional lawyer.

Of course. He was just a sitting judge, what the hell does he know about the law?

As I see no response is forthcoming (as my point is correct from reading more than a 'few' opinions of all judges mentioned (I'd suggest you do the same before posting again)), I'll leave you to the needless and baseless bashing okay? That seems about par for the course when you can't answer the question put to you.

I've read his opinions in the light of a legal education (which is necessary - do you have any idea how many wrong-headed briefs circulate around the courthouses of this land courtesy of amateur "lawyers"?) He's a sound jurist, though it's difficult to say with certainty whether he will construe the Constitution in the same manner as Scalia and Thomas because as a circuit judge he is not permitted to do much of anything but follow the USSC.

The practice of law, even constitutional law, is largely objective rather than subjective, as a close encounter with the bar exam would inform you. The only subjectivism being practiced is by liberal judges "discovering" nonexistent rights in the Constitution for political reasons. If conservatives do the same thing, they are JUST as wrong as the liberals.

Moreover, whether a profession is "objective" or "subjective" has little to do with whether or not you kill somebody . . . straw man. Of course, I would venture to say that Roe v. Wade may have killed more people even than lousy doctors . . .

Unfortunately, just reading and "studying" the opinions doesn't do the job. Otherwise, why would anybody bother to go to law school? I believe you can still "read law" in a few states, but again in that case the student is studying under an experienced attorney. Unless of course you think law school and the bar exam are just a racket . . .

And re Judge Napolitano - he's not a constitutional lawyer and there's a big difference between a STATE trial court judge and a FEDERAL circuit judge. (This is another reason why some law school time comes in handy.) He's an intelligent man, but his time on the bench did NOT consist of reviewing constitutional issues. It's black letter law in most state trial courts that constitutional issues are avoided if at all possible, and they're usually pretty good at dodging them.

. . . and re the good Congressman - most everyone on FR knows his real name, and since you're so well-versed in Supreme Court matters it should be a simple matter to find a couple of his cases on the USSC website . . . he doesn't need to present "evidence" because anyone can find out for himself. . . . Now WHO did you say is ad homining here?

I've read his opinions in the light of a legal education (which is necessary - do you have any idea how many wrong-headed briefs circulate around the courthouses of this land courtesy of amateur "lawyers"?)

Oh good, another 'constitutional' lawyer. Geez, ths place is becoming as crowded with legally educated lawyer types as SCOTUSblog....

He's a sound jurist, though it's difficult to say with certainty whether he will construe the Constitution in the same manner as Scalia and Thomas because as a circuit judge he is not permitted to do much of anything but follow the USSC.

Uh-oh, the cover up begins. Roberts agreed with Scalia and not Thomas. Big difference. Alito will fall under the sphere of Scalia as well. Big government, no idea of federalism.

So let me get this straight. You've claimed a legal education and you can't read between the lines of opinions to get the feel of what the judge is thinking? I'd be more than happy to direct you to several of Alito's decisions where his opinion on several issues is easily discernable...Oh but wait, I didn't read them in 'light of a legal education' so I must have read them wrong...

The practice of law, even constitutional law, is largely objective rather than subjective, as a close encounter with the bar exam would inform you. The only subjectivism being practiced is by liberal judges "discovering" nonexistent rights in the Constitution for political reasons. If conservatives do the same thing, they are JUST as wrong as the liberals.

But yet that's what many 'conservatives' would have these judges do. Scalia and Roberts were wrong, Thomas was right. One opinion was a Republican opinion, and one was a Constitutionalist one. If Constitutional law is objective how on earth did 9 people come to three different conclusions?!? Also for you to say that Constitutional law is not subjective, it sort of defeats the point of having nine judges as by your standard of objectivism they should all come to the same conclusion every time. Since they don't.....Geez, I'm glad you're not a doctor

Unfortunately, just reading and "studying" the opinions doesn't do the job. Otherwise, why would anybody bother to go to law school?

If you and the other one were the only instances I had to base my opinion on, I'd say good question. However, we have respected jurists like Janice Rogers Brown, J. Michael Luttig, and Clarence Thomas (even Justice Rehnquist to some extent, God rest his soul) that remind me law schools do have some purpose. Lawyers do have ~~they're~~ ~~there~~ (did I miss one?) their uses

And re Judge Napolitano - he's not a constitutional lawyer and there's a big difference between a STATE trial court judge and a FEDERAL circuit judge. (This is another reason why some law school time comes in handy.)

Well thank ye!! Us unedukated folks don't know them differences between the states and the federal government. Unfortunately most 'conservatives' don't either. Now as Judge Napolitano is such a failure in your eyes at what he does and since you have read 'opinions in the light of a legal education' should I ask you as well why you're only postng on an internet bulletin board? Do you have any books out there I may have heard of? Get your name out there, you could be the next Senator from the state of Georgia!!

and re the good Congressman - most everyone on FR knows his real name, and since you're so well-versed in Supreme Court matters it should be a simple matter to find a couple of his cases on the USSC website . . . he doesn't need to present "evidence" because anyone can find out for himself. . . .

Oh trust me. I have looked at that as well. The information is quite easily found. Why do you think I asked the questions? I believe I may have missed some.....

Now WHO did you say is ad homining here?

Not me...not me..

I do again find it interesting that now you refuse, or can't, answer the question. Let me put it out for you again so you can ignore it and continue the attacks eh? The original poster suggested (actually stated matter of factly) that Roberts and Scalia would agree in most opinions with Thomas and Brown. Do you agree with that? And if so, what is your basis for such a statement? As you will no doubt focus on my rebuttal (that's a lawyer type word ain't it?) instead of answering the question put before you, I will end this conversation post haste. It's boring and for some reason the questions I pose never get answered...

Unfortunately, it's hard to hold a conversation about a fairly arcane area of a rather arcane profession with somebody whose basic premises are faulty. Kind of like trying to discuss ballistics with somebody who gets their information on firearms from the movies.

Sorry if you feel that I'm dodging the question, but in the words of one of our (local) appellate court judges, talking with you about the law is like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall. I'm not even sure I understand exactly what you're trying to say. Maybe the fault is on my part - in which case I do apologize for being unable to follow your argument.

Nailing jellyfish to the wall is certainly possible: an relevant.

It involved getting a willing jellyfish (actually, willing or unwilling doesn't matter), a large wall upon which to view the exposed jellyfish internals, externals, and confrontals, a hammer and nails, and a large clear sheet of plexiglass.

One merely squishes the jellyfish (as you have done with the pressure of your arguments) into thin but visible layers (under the scrutiny of the public's eye in clear view), and then nails the plexiglass to the wall (for further examination.).

It is not, however, very pleasant for the jellyfish to be so exposed.

Sorry if you feel that I'm dodging the question, but in the words of one of our (local) appellate court judges, talking with you about the law is like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall. I'm not even sure I understand exactly what you're trying to say. Maybe the fault is on my part - in which case I do apologize for being unable to follow your argument.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you (although one who has read judicial opinions in 'light of a legal education' should have had no problem with the question the first time)

From post #31 the poster makes the statement..

There is no "Republican" interpretation of the Constitution. Many hold a literal view. Some hold an expansionist view. But both Roberts and Alito hold the literalist view. If you don't see that from their decisions that are a matter of record, you are not paying attention.
Janice Rogers Brown is in the same camp. Justice Thomas is not "the only one on the court."

My question stands. Brown and Thomas are not in the same camp of Roberts or Alito. Brown and Thomas have (more than once I might add) stated in their opinions the concern of the federal government overstepping the rights of the separate and sovereign states. Brown is even on record in a speech as dissenting against the incorporation theory of the 14th Amendment. Considering the stance of Roberts and Alito on more than a few cases (reading their opinions with my 'limited' mind apparently), how can one say those four are in the same camp?* Two of them are true originalists (for the most part) and two are stalwart Republican judges.

*I've emboldened my question so it doesn't slip by as a jellyfish this time...

Please forgive the snide remark and just answer the question. After dealing with the other poster I shouldn't have taken it out on you.

Great column.

It looks like you won't be getting an answer. That's too bad; I was interested in seeing it.