Replies

You seem to think I'm arguing there is no need for judges or lawyers.

I'm arguing that judges don't need to be brilliant as the Beltway defines it. And that the entire conservative movement was implicitly making that argument before, oh, just the other day.

Somebody made the point that it is easy to think the law is not complex until you go to court. I guess it has gone out of fashion for lawyers to argue to juries that the case before them is simple and clear. In every lawsuit, at least one highly trained legal mind disagrees with the poster's argument.

You're an attorney? Knowing the American courtroom as you certainly must, maybe you could elucidate how the jury system strengthens YOUR apparent argument that we are all lost unless brilliant minds protect the law from the rest of us.

You may be a credit to your discipline, but your profession as a whole does not have the credibility to make that argument.

Thank you for the courteous reply.

I'm arguing that judges don't need to be brilliant as the Beltway defines it. And that the entire conservative movement was implicitly making that argument before, oh, just the other day.

"The Beltway" is a loaded term that is any event too limiting to be fairly applied to the widespread criticism this nominee has engendered. I thought the entire conservative movement believed that we needed brilliant constitutional scholars like Scalia or Bork who had proven they had the guts to articulate controversial originalist positions.

Somebody made the point that it is easy to think the law is not complex until you go to court. I guess it has gone out of fashion for lawyers to argue to juries that the case before them is simple and clear. In every lawsuit, at least one highly trained legal mind disagrees with the poster's argument.

You are dealing with two different things. As far as the jury goes, lawyers DO argue that "this case is simple" every day. In many cases (not all) this is true, since the jury has a very limited job: match up facts as they came out in the evidence to a few pages of jury instructions covering the law. But the jury is seldom exposed to the frequently complicated arguments regarding legal issues that the judge and lawyers handle before the jury is ever picked. You've heard it said that "every case is different," and, as hard as it is to believe maybe, it is true. There is always some little crumb of novelty that seems to fall into the cracks of well-established law. Lawyers have the training and experience to deal with those.

You're an attorney? Knowing the American courtroom as you certainly must, maybe you could elucidate how the jury system strengthens YOUR apparent argument that we are all lost unless brilliant minds protect the law from the rest of us.

The jury system serves its purpose. I like juries and think they usually do well at the limited (but nonetheless crucial) task the system gives them. Juries were not part of my argument; I was merely pointing out that they didn't really have anything to do with the argument you were making.

Yes, I want the brilliant lawyers (I am definitely not one of them) on our side, not to protect the law from you and me, but from the other (sometimes brilliant, in their own twisted way) lawyers who would plunder our law and our culture from the bench. Remember, a vote on the Supreme Court can be a vote, which can be good, as far as it goes. But you want someone who can persuade others to vote along, to write the memorable and compelling opinion that will carry weight in coming years.

Far from wanting to protect the law from non-lawyers, I have a passion for the law, and, like most true enthusiasts, want everyone to share it. I want every citizen to understand how the law works, and to feel that they have enough of a stake in it to demand the right judicial nominees.