Ninety-nine percent of the Justices’ work is corporate law that a non-lawyer would find incomprehensible. A non-lawyer simply cannot do the job. Unfortunately, the “Constitutional” cases are the ones by which the Court has seized legislative power, and have destroyed the Constitution.
He didn’t say non-lawyer, he said non-judge.
In the end though what do the corporate cases come down to...dollar and cents? violations of the commerce clause? EPA law? Trade and treaty issues? It seems to me that a tough questioning layman can force some of these glib high toned lawyers to actually explain in plain english just how Americans are being fleeced and their wallets high tech lynched...with out all the silver tongued gobbledeegook!
Plain yes or no, “is is”, language. Government in this country was supposed to be simpler and its laws fairly easy to grasp and understand and any laws that are filled with addendums, ibids, see page 1136’s, and quid pro quo’s to be in affect only on alternate Tuesdays are laws that one knows are giving all Americans legal wedgies!
Right now I am working with a company where purchase orders are 22 pages of lawyer BS. many vendors will not od business with them because it is such garbage. I call it “comprehensible translation”.
Right now I am working with a company where purchase orders are 22 pages of lawyer BS. many vendors will not od business with them because it is such garbage. I call it “comprehensible translation”.
“A non-lawyer simply cannot do the job.”
I don’t think Clinton was arguing for a non-lawyer. He was arguing for a non-judge. The most famous examples of Justices who were not previously judges did happen to be lawyers, including Hugo Black, William Douglas and Earl Warren.
I can’t vouch for the veracity of this, but allegedly every single SC justice has been a lawyer in one form or another.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_have_to_be_a_lawyer