Posted on 08/06/2009 12:20:10 PM PDT by Pyro7480
There are plenty of conservative Protestants who could sit on the Supreme Court.
And they're not.
There's an old law school joke that says that those who get "A's" become law professors. Those who get "B's" become judges, and those who get "C's" become millionaires. :)
But to address your question, it is true that most judges and Supremes have some sort of trial experience. What we need to remember is that being a "trial lawyer" isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Trial Lawyers Association gets a lot of ink and they are the liberal, ambulance-chasing wing that gives millions to the socialist Rats. However, whenever they are in court they are opposed by other trial lawyers (corporate defense, etc.). In addition, law and order (good guy) prosecutors are really trial lawyers. It's really the liberal, ambulance-chasing Trial Lawyers Association that are the bad guys since they are the biggest obstacle to tort reform, which would really go far in controlling health insurance costs.
I agree. I’m someone who doesn’t bad-mouth defense attorneys. They are, if needed, our last line of defense against the state.
It's really the liberal, ambulance-chasing Trial Lawyers Association that are the bad guys since they are the biggest obstacle to tort reform, which would really go far in controlling health insurance costs.
They, the bad guys, make up most of Congress, are heavy contributors for no tort reform, and are powerful lobbyists. It is no coincidence that there is no tort reform in the so-called Healthcare Reform Bill.
Back then people didn’t assign scads of virtue to historical items over which they had no control. Well aside from that RINO TR who proclaimed that he had ‘not one drop of English blood’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.