Sad, the constitution doesn’t say you have to be a lawyer/judge to be a justice, kind of wished they would enforce that...
Resolute Conservative ~:” Sad, the constitution doesn’t say you have to be a lawyer/judge to be a justice, kind of wished they would enforce that... “
Yeah , by eliminating the common man , they eliminate any pretense of “ Common Sense” !
Now , decisions are all based on “ legal precendent”
and the last “precedent” was a judicial overreach which eliminated “states rights “ .(California Prop 8 )
So , now that we have the SCOTUS “ legal precendent” that Federal laws control and over rule “states rights” .
“...the constitution doesn’t say you have to be a lawyer/judge to be a justice...”
There was a time when you could study to be a lawyer, or “read law”, and then practice under the guidance of another lawyer. A form of apprenticeship. I believe this is how Lincoln studied.
Then came the ABA. Maintaining high rates through scarcity, bars to entry through obscenely high costs of education at only approved schools, and privilege granted only to other members of the guild.
To all of you people using this opportunity to attack lawyers and argue that this abridges one’s chance at ‘justice’, let me just say that having an experienced lawyer argue before the Supreme Court is the best opportunity to obtain a chance at ‘justice.’
Oral argument is an opportunity to argue the finer points of facts, policy, and legal precedent that the great majority of lay people will not be able to do successfully. Appellate attorneys are specialists in this area. Many pro se parties have difficulty grasping even the basic tenets of law and focusing on the important issues even at the small claims court level, much less on the federal level.