We need to stop appointing attorneys to SCOTUS....

Of course, we know that legally it's not a requirement. So why do we keep appointing only attorneys to SCOTUS? I understand there should be attorneys. But I would hold that it would be better if at least four of the nine justices were not attorneys.

Attorneys know the law but... anybody can read and understand a law. A historian knows better about the background that led to the Constitution. An economist is better informed as to the financial conditions. Psychologists, sociologists, ... experts in many many field can do the job perfectly. The only thing that attorneys know, and a layman doesn't, is how a judge will rule. And judges rule based on what they believe the appeals court that oversees their case would rule if the case were appealed. And that one rules based on what they believe the higher court would rules.... and so on. But that makes no difference when you're in SCOTUS. There is no higher court.

Attorneys have sort of a "secret code" by which they understand each other. But why do they expect citizens to behave according to this "secret code"? If you read the Constitution as it was written, there is no "code". It was written so that any average educated English speaker could understand it.

I know that, in reality, it can be interpreted in many different ways. But why is the way an attorney interprets it better than.... anybody else's? The Constitution itself tells us how to interpret it. In the Preamble. The only question that anybody should need to answer to interpret it is: "how well does my ruling conform to the Preamble of the Constitution". That's all! Does my decision promote justice? Does it provide for the common welfare? Does it insure tranquility? Does it help secure liberty?...

I think judges... and especially SCOTUS justices, have abandoned the sense of justice as described in the Preamble. They want to perpetuate themselves in power. And there is absolutely no rational motive for us to accept this.

Again: I'm not saying there should not be attorneys in SCOTUS. I'm just saying there should be a large representation of non-attorneys.

 

Nervous are ya?

 

Ivanka Trump. Not an attorney.

 

Or Donald Trump can nominate himself.

 

I believe all of the remaining Supreme Court are either Harvard or Yale Law School grads.

 

Did I forget to mention it should be somebody honest and with a brain? Ivanka doesn't qualify.

 

One might think you a conservative by interpreting the constitution the way it was written.

 

Absolutely! I don't care much for ideology. I care more about doing the right thing. But I would go as far as to say that I'm more conservative, in respect to the Constitution, then most self-proclaimed "conservatives"

 

We need to stop appointing attorneys to SCOTUS....
I agree completely.

 

No shame in that. So if Trump where to nominate a conservative like Scalia instead of someone like RBG, would you approve?

Personally I think he should wait until after the election.

 

There is rumbling that if Ivanka gets elected into Scotus then as soon as possible the democrats will raise the number of seats and stack it with Bill, Hillary and Michelle

 

Why do you think he should wait?

 

They will be three very old people by the time that opportunity presents itself.

 

SCOTUS is a lifetime gig, they have no reason to make decisions based on their continued position of power. Maybe why it was set up that way?

 

Scalia is a partisan ideologue. Exactly the opposite of what I describe on the OP.

 

In theory, it's not a bad idea. Other disciplines would flesh out the knowledge base of the Court, and there is no requirement that appointees to the Supreme Court be attorney's, but I do think that law school introduces you to the particular way lawyers and judges look at how laws are applied. One of the best courses I've taken was a constitutional law course which really opened my eyes to court cases where the judge's decision seem counter-intuitive to an obvious decision until you learn the details of the law and the details of the case.

 

I agree. It is important to have experienced judges in the Supreme Court. But I think 4 out of 9 justices not being attorneys would be a healthy proportion. The details of the law and how it applies to a case are important. But also important is the sense of justice that, I believe, is becoming scarce in the Judicial branch. They would help keep the court aware that their decisions refer to real human beings.

 

You think a "sense of justice" is more important than what is actually written in the U.S. Constitution? Aren't you arguing for what amounts to "jury nullification"?

 

I can't tell if you're serious or you are just being sarcastic.

Not exactly.

 

What's wrong with jury nullification?

 

I agree. Ted Nugent for SCOTUS.

 

I have no problem with it. But it's not what I'm proposing.

 

LOL! So arguments to pack the court begins.

 

Strange that RBG would pick an ideologue as a best friend on the supreme court.

 

Well I think this is the point where we part ways. I think the highest priority of a Supreme Court judge is to apply the law and constitution "without fear or favor." Much of the time a fair application of the law isn't going to work out for someone individually, but when applied consistently it works out for everyone.