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.
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?