[jwalsh07]

Your postings seem to suggest that you believe just about anyone, given the ability to read and write the English language is qualified to engage in forging Constitutional law for our Republic. Specialists such as "lawyers" only obscure the clear language of a short document. Is this what you mean to say?

I don't know what he means but I'll be a bit more blunt. The forging of Constitutional Law by the best and brightest since 1939 has left us with Constitutional law resembling the innards of a deer spread on the ground awaiting burial.

[jpsb]

Best argument I read yet in favor of the not quite the best and not quite the brightest. One point for you.

[SalukiLawyer]

I don't know what he means but I'll be a bit more blunt. The forging of Constitutional Law by the best and brightest since 1939 has left us with Constitutional law resembling the innards of a deer spread on the ground awaiting burial.

Both the process and result are going to be inevitably messy when constitutional law is a mosaic built up on "a case-by-case basis" as they say. I don't think the answer is to blame lawyers; I think it is to blame those lawyers who have departed from sound principles of interpretation in order to impose their own enlightened notions on the unwashed masses. Before the Harriet Meiers nomination, conservatives could all agree that we needed brilliant, powerful, constitutional superstars like Scalia or Bork. Now, all of a sudden, traditional legal qualifications don't matter. There are some strange statements on the boards here. Some of them are just the usual bash-the-lawyers chuckleheads crawling out of the woodwork.