Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   The SCOTUS is composed of some of the most educated and successful legal experts in the country (even the Trump appointees). But it is having trouble trusting a Congress made up of failed lawyers, professional politicians and poli-sci majors   (theatlantic.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, President of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States, United States Congress, Supreme Court, deep suspicion of Congress, past Supreme Court term, Department of Justice, Court's decision  
•       •       •

1283 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jul 2020 at 4:21 PM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



20 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-07-21 1:21:23 PM  
Facts not in evidence Please provide proof that SCOTUS Justices are well educated and succesful*

*if you argue that being on the Supreme Court proves they are successful you are engaging in circular reasoning
 
2020-07-21 2:34:36 PM  

spongeboob: Facts not in evidence Please provide proof that SCOTUS Justices are well educated and succesful*

*if you argue that being on the Supreme Court proves they are successful you are engaging in circular reasoning


They are educated and successful.  The conservatives are also bullshiat artists who use originalist doctrine to find loopholes in the Constitution they can drive ideological truck bombs into.
 
2020-07-21 2:42:36 PM  
Legislative candidate certification: Require law and civics exams for all applications to run for any legislative offices (state & fed).
If you can't display a better-than-basic knowledge of lawmaking and legal processes, you have no business making any changes to the existing bodies of law(s?).
Like any other job that requires knowing how to actually do that job.
 
2020-07-21 2:46:47 PM  
SCOTUS justices are not generally known for being the top legal minds in their field .

Gorsuch may be an exception.
 
2020-07-21 3:23:07 PM  
To start with. the law and government have a complicated relationship that is beyond my pay (taking a break) and expertise (oy) grade

I've been an attorney for over twenty years. I've met many fellow attorneys who are slower than me, many who are much more intelligent then me. But the best are the ones who find their little corner of the legal world and excel in it.

For day to day, I listened to ones who can just bulldoze through most matters (and sometimes I was the bulldozer). For trickier ones I had my gurus (one of whom I still refer cases to even though I stopped practicing and closed our firm when my wife passed several years ago) who were happy to share insights over dinner (we wrote it off, bless our tax counterparts).

I've read or at least heard of some of the cases mentioned in the article but none are in my practice area. That doesn't make me an idiot, just one of many whose work lives take them elsewhere. So if I were in Congress, my degree would be worthless for medical laws. I'd take my chances on a UCC commercial/business law statute.

All that said, many of us lawyers are just history major wannabe nerds good at memorizing, taking tests and networking.
 
2020-07-21 3:43:59 PM  
Bubba Beauregard Cousin-Humper III isn't going to vote into office some college edjukated sissy boy.

You're going to get dummies in Congress because people are dummies.
 
2020-07-21 3:53:41 PM  
You missed out "religious cranks and conspiracy nutters"
 
2020-07-21 4:24:21 PM  

damageddude: To start with. the law and government have a complicated relationship that is beyond my pay (taking a break) and expertise (oy) grade

I've been an attorney for over twenty years. I've met many fellow attorneys who are slower than me, many who are much more intelligent then me. But the best are the ones who find their little corner of the legal world and excel in it.

For day to day, I listened to ones who can just bulldoze through most matters (and sometimes I was the bulldozer). For trickier ones I had my gurus (one of whom I still refer cases to even though I stopped practicing and closed our firm when my wife passed several years ago) who were happy to share insights over dinner (we wrote it off, bless our tax counterparts).

I've read or at least heard of some of the cases mentioned in the article but none are in my practice area. That doesn't make me an idiot, just one of many whose work lives take them elsewhere. So if I were in Congress, my degree would be worthless for medical laws. I'd take my chances on a UCC commercial/business law statute.

All that said, many of us lawyers are just history major wannabe nerds good at memorizing, taking tests and networking.


You say worthless, but you're still a good deal ahead of people without any legal training.
 
2020-07-21 4:34:06 PM  
You know, through all of our history, most of our leaders have not been particularly bright. I'm not saying they were all idiots, but given that until very recently (let's just say the 1960s), the entirely white male mediocrities of America only needed to compete with the other white male mediocrities, they didn't really have to work all that hard to succeed. And thanks to elitism (actual elitism, not the "elitism" Republicans accuse others of), they didn't even have to compete with most white men, just the wealthy, well-connected ones. The idea that America's various "heroes" excelled due entirely to hard work and brilliance and perseverance is a fairy tale just as much as the South's bullshiat about the Civil War.

When you can keep 95% of women and people of color from every single institution that confers authority on America's leaders, you don't have to be brilliant. Or even really smart. And that exclusion of most people from a fair chance to excel continues today. For example, in 2016, 163 million people, rather than electing a reasonably competent woman to the presidency, chose to hand that office to the most obviously incompetent male running for president in living memory, someone who makes George Bush 2 look like Churchill by comparison.

Some would say this means the woman should have just given up and let a man who would have a "better chance" of winning the election have the nomination.

Which proves my point more than anything I've typed here. It's amusing to me how these people rarely seem to realize this. Or think it demonstrates something other than their stupid bigotry.
 
2020-07-21 4:43:59 PM  
We just watched the most prestigious of the bunch sit back and let the Senate tell Trump he did a good job leveraging Ukraine to influence the election.
At this point I'm not sure anyone's general expectations of justice are being adequately met by our judicial system at any level.
 
2020-07-21 4:45:18 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: You know, through all of our history, most of our leaders have not been particularly bright. I'm not saying they were all idiots, but given that until very recently (let's just say the 1960s), the entirely white male mediocrities of America only needed to compete with the other white male mediocrities, they didn't really have to work all that hard to succeed. And thanks to elitism (actual elitism, not the "elitism" Republicans accuse others of), they didn't even have to compete with most white men, just the wealthy, well-connected ones. The idea that America's various "heroes" excelled due entirely to hard work and brilliance and perseverance is a fairy tale just as much as the South's bullshiat about the Civil War.

When you can keep 95% of women and people of color from every single institution that confers authority on America's leaders, you don't have to be brilliant. Or even really smart. And that exclusion of most people from a fair chance to excel continues today. For example, in 2016, 163 million people the Electoral College, rather than electing a reasonably competent woman to the presidency, chose to hand that office to the most obviously incompetent male running for president in living memory, someone who makes George Bush 2 look like Churchill by comparison.

Some would say this means the woman should have just given up and let a man who would have a "better chance" of winning the election have the nomination.

Which proves my point more than anything I've typed here. It's amusing to me how these people rarely seem to realize this. Or think it demonstrates something other than their stupid bigotry.


ftfy.
 
2020-07-21 4:51:15 PM  
NOBODY should trust a poli sci degree.
 
2020-07-21 4:53:33 PM  
what the cat dragged in:

ftfy.

You can blame the Electoral College all you want, but if 100 million people had bothered to vote in 2016 and elected the more qualified person, we'd have a competent president now instead of the useless asshole we ended up with.

While I don't like the Electoral College and think it's an anachronism, the responsibility for selecting decent public officials is on us, not the Electoral College.
 
2020-07-21 4:58:23 PM  
Except for when the conservatives on it burned the Voting Rights Act down, because they *snicker* totally trusted that Congress would totally get right on doing what they suggested and passing a new set of requirements to prevent states run by racist farks from corrupting the polls.

To name just one of Mentat's ideological truck bombs...
 
2020-07-21 5:58:24 PM  
I cannot remember any law in my lifetime (approaching 60 years now) that I would consider to be in good faith by congress.  What they pass is aimed at keeping them in power while throwing just enough crumbs to the electorate to keep them there.

When you think of all the gains in equality, its all be through the courts, while the democrat and republican have conveniently sided against equality (DOMA, no immigration bill, etc..etc..etc.).

Biden will play us again, he has worked to keep himself in power for 30+ years and will continue to operate in the same manner.
 
2020-07-21 7:21:36 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: what the cat dragged in:

ftfy.

You can blame the Electoral College all you want, but if 100 million people had bothered to vote in 2016 and elected the more qualified person, we'd have a competent president now instead of the useless asshole we ended up with.

While I don't like the Electoral College and think it's an anachronism, the responsibility for selecting decent public officials is on us, not the Electoral College.


See: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_an​d​_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/pres​idential_election_a_map_showing_the_vo​te_power_of_all_50_states.html

The problem is that the EC skews the campaign to a few battleground states, which tends to have the effect of depressing turnout in safe states. At the same time, a vote in Wyoming is equal to four New York votes from an EC standpoint.

Then we have all the ratfarking going on with disenfranchisement - we've already seen that happening in the primaries. See, people want to vote, but because of these obstacles it is often much, much harder than it needs to be, especially for the districts that tend to lean Dem.

So blaming the voters for low turnout is not really the whole issue. The EC needs to end, and we need a secure, low-friction voting system that enables everyone to participate.
 
gcc [TotalFark]
2020-07-21 7:46:08 PM  

RussianPotato: NOBODY should trust a poli sci degree.


I have a poli sci degree. Do you believe me about that?
 
2020-07-21 9:17:54 PM  
The SCOTUS is composed of some of the most educated and successful legal experts in the country (even the Trump appointees). But it is having trouble trusting a Congress made up of failed lawyers, professional politicians and poli-sci majors

But?
 
2020-07-22 8:05:16 AM  

dwrash: cannot remember any law in my lifetime (approaching 60 years now) that I would consider to be in good faith by congress. What they pass is aimed at keeping them in power while throwing just enough crumbs to the electorate to keep them there.


The ADA is pretty good.
 
2020-07-22 9:25:01 AM  

damageddude: dwrash: cannot remember any law in my lifetime (approaching 60 years now) that I would consider to be in good faith by congress. What they pass is aimed at keeping them in power while throwing just enough crumbs to the electorate to keep them there.

The ADA is pretty good.


The ADA has been turned into a legal sledge hammer and is abused left and right.  It also is a bit insane in some of its requirements and adds around 30% to all public construction projects that benefit < 5% of the population.
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.