Trump remaking the federal judicary

[Ling Ling]

I specifically said that anecdotal evidence is shit.

And stop crying about partisanship. The entire point of the OP was cheerleading the idea of partisan appointments by Trump. Not a mention of their qualifications.

I was replying to Trotsky, who apparently was speaking for you. However your point is correct, in that anectodal evidence is shit.
I'm not crying about anything, just discussing.

 

[Ling Ling]

The irony here is palpable.

Not only did you show that you weren't discussing the subject in good faith ("I was wondering" v "That's what I thought") your root argument is terrible.

. . . . and his anecdotal evidence is supported with data.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/lawyers-ideologies.pdf.

Law as a profession tends to be to the left of american society generally, although they reflect, to a degree, the politics of their state. See page 15, 18. This is even more more pronounced at the elite legal institutions. See page 27, 28. The highest ranked elite legal institution that produces a proportionate number of conservative lawyers is Vanderbilt. It is barely in the top 20. There are talented conservative lawyers being produced by these schools (and there are talented lawyers being produced at less-prestigious institutions), but they are outnumbered. This is also reflected at the big law firms. See pages 35-38.


*also, attacking someone because they did x and some people with overlapping ideologies criticize x is moronic.

So if I suspect something, and that suspicion, through asking questions proves to be correct, I'm not discussing something in good faith ? Okay that's one way to look at it I suppose.
I am aware that lawyers tend to be to the left of society as a whole, which was the reason I suspected what I did to begin with.
I didn't attack anyone, I expressed an opinion. I see the left wing posters on here in every discussion, who would never stand for the generalizations made about Federalist Society attorneys made about any of their favored groups and they would demand evidence for any assertion made, reject out of hand opinion or anecdotes, and demand sources and evidence for claims. Just like an attorney would in court . So my observation was noting that, nothing else.
I see you couldn't help but try to assert that somehow something I said was moronic as well, nice touch.
I get it, all the left wing guys are smarter than everyone else. You could provide statistics to prove it, you all agree that it is that way, so therefore it is. You don't have to get so upset counselor.

 

[bobgeese]

He's singlehandedly rebuilding our military and shaping the courts for a generation.

 

[Seaside]

As long as they nominate professional judges and not religious loonies with an agenda.

I would laugh my ass off if they manage to do something really damaging like overturning Roe v Wade or some shit like that.

I think USA should overturn gay marriage.

America cannot be true Christian country with gay marriage.

 

[Lord Coke]

No. It's retarded to take anecdotal evidence of someone being proud of gun ownership, while putting your head in the sand regarding the US having more gun deaths than any other developed nation. You aren't even making a legal argument. What am I supposed to refute?

I was making a personal observation about what I am doing about my life. I was not making a legal or policy argument.
Last year I overturned a bad law. Recently someone was able to defend their life because of it. That made me happy. That was my entire point.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

They had a speaker when I was in law school describing abortion as the slavery of the 21st century. The content was shit, but the food was excellent. Half the people left in the middle after they finished eating.

I'm still laughing at the idea of a Commie in law school. When you should have been studying Blacks Law dictionary, you were filling you head with pseudo intellectual nonsense like "Das Kapital".

I sincerely hope your current employment is in relation to your degree.

In regards to your observation that most lawyers are liberal, this makes quite a bit of sense. Republicans tend to support less regulation, and a general smaller size and scope of the state. Democrats can be counted on to constantly expand the power of the state, thus expanding the need for lawyers. Lawyers vote left, for the same reason public-sector unions vote left: job security.

It's a simple formula:

• Human beings respond to incentive

• Lawyers are human beings

• The Democratic party's agenda will require more legal work in the long run than the Republicans.

• Therefore, lawyers are incentivized to vote Democrat.

 

[Trotsky]

I'm still laughing at the idea of a Commie in law school. When you should have been studying Blacks Law dictionary, you were filling you head with pseudo intellectual nonsense like "Das Kapital".

I sincerely hope your current employment is in relation to your degree.

In regards to your observation that most lawyers are liberal, this makes quite a bit of sense. Republicans tend to support less regulation, and a general smaller size and scope of the state. Democrats can be counted on to constantly expand the power of the state, thus expanding the need for lawyers. Lawyers vote left, for the same reason public-sector unions vote left: job security.

It's a simple formula:

• Human beings respond to incentive

• Lawyers are human beings

• The Democratic party's agenda will require more legal work in the long run than the Republicans.

• Therefore, lawyers are incentivized to vote Democrat.

This is literally the stupidest example of pseudo-logic I have ever seen on this board.

Also, there are plenty of communists in law school, the Ivy League, etc, although the plurality is social democratic types to be sure. But it's only because we're much smarter than you.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

This is literally the stupidest example of pseudo-logic I have ever seen on this board.

Yet your unable to refute my assertions. If you were able to, you wouldn't need any insults.

You're entitled to your opinion, but understand that an opinion is the lowest form of human knowledge.

Also, there are plenty of communists in law school, the Ivy League, etc, although the plurality is social democratic types to be sure. But it's only because we're much smarter than you.

Do these little Marxists-in-training understand that they, and everyone that they love, would be the first ones rounded up if their idea of Utopia was ever achieved? Im just curious how they square that circle?

 

[Jim Bob]

This is literally the stupidest example of pseudo-logic I have ever seen on this board.

Also, there are plenty of communists in law school, the Ivy League, etc, although the plurality is social democratic types to be sure. But it's only because we're much smarter than you.

Insults don't make you smart. His statement made complete sense if you read it.

 

[Rod1]

I'm still laughing at the idea of a Commie in law school. When you should have been studying Blacks Law dictionary, you were filling you head with pseudo intellectual nonsense like "Das Kapital".

I sincerely hope your current employment is in relation to your degree.

In regards to your observation that most lawyers are liberal, this makes quite a bit of sense. Republicans tend to support less regulation, and a general smaller size and scope of the state. Democrats can be counted on to constantly expand the power of the state, thus expanding the need for lawyers. Lawyers vote left, for the same reason public-sector unions vote left: job security.

It's a simple formula:

• Human beings respond to incentive

• Lawyers are human beings

• The Democratic party's agenda will require more legal work in the long run than the Republicans.

• Therefore, lawyers are incentivized to vote Democrat.

This makes absolutely no-sense.

Do less regulations means less divorces, business disputes, bankrupcies, crime, etc, etc.

Most of the times you need a lawyer isnt because of the government, but because there is a dispute among private individuals.

 

[Trotsky]

Yet your unable to refute my assertions. If you were able to, you wouldn't need any insults.

It's a dumb theory and a way for you to try to mitigate a mere reflection of the larger truth that highly educated persons are overwhelmingly left on the American spectrum, whereas intellectually hapless boobs are politically situated on the other side. Anyways, the persons going into state positions or positions necessitated by the state are generally from lower ranked schools (not all: I did have some particularly moral classmates that turned down the big bucks to work as public defenders), which have higher proportions of right-leaning students. Top law school students generally go into Big Law (which usually involves corporate transactional work and securities litigation) and federal judicial clerkships of which there are static, unchanging amounts regardless of how many laws are on the books.

Do these little Marxists-in-training understand that they, and everyone that they love, would be the first ones rounded up if their idea of Utopia was ever achieved? Im just curious how they square that circle?

Hmmm, I'm sure your deduction is top shelf, but can you fill me in on how you get to this conclusion so I can relay it to them? Generally, they love to do their best to supplement their actual knowledge with the speculation of pants-shitting laymen.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Every President "remakes the judiciary" during their term. Because they serve eight years. And most high court judge nominees are in the mid 50's when appointed - so most only serve two full Presidential terms before retiring. The vacancies Trump is filling are probably Clinton nominees, Obama replaced a lot of Bush 41 nominees, next President will replace a lot of Bush 43 nominees....

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I'm still laughing at the idea of a Commie in law school. When you should have been studying Blacks Law dictionary, you were filling you head with pseudo intellectual nonsense like "Das Kapital".

I sincerely hope your current employment is in relation to your degree.

In regards to your observation that most lawyers are liberal, this makes quite a bit of sense. Republicans tend to support less regulation, and a general smaller size and scope of the state. Democrats can be counted on to constantly expand the power of the state, thus expanding the need for lawyers. Lawyers vote left, for the same reason public-sector unions vote left: job security.

It's a simple formula:

• Human beings respond to incentive

• Lawyers are human beings

• The Democratic party's agenda will require more legal work in the long run than the Republicans.

• Therefore, lawyers are incentivized to vote Democrat.

This is poor logic. I didn't know a single person in law school who 'voted Democrat' because he or she thought it would provide them job security.

As for the Federalist Society, I don't think its reputation is as bad as some on here are saying (although I disagree with almost all of their positions). Four of the current SCOTUS justices are members. It has chapters in almost all law schools in the country. It has been remarkably successful in spreading given it was only founded 35 years ago.

 

[waiguoren]

As long as they nominate professional judges and not religious loonies with an agenda.

I would laugh my ass off if they manage to do something really damaging like overturning Roe v Wade or some shit like that.

The Court got Roe wrong and one doesn't have to be a religious nut to see that. I doubt you've ever tried to read that decision---otherwise you wouldn't make such a post.

 

[waiguoren]

Say what you want but I am a active member of the Federalist Society and the organization as a whole is pretty happy in regards to Trumps judicial picks. We are in the process of remaking the federal judicary from the top down. It is a beautiful thing.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scalias-all-the-way-down-1507847435#comments_sector

Funny, I just read that piece an hour ago. Great job by Strassel as usual.

And yes, it is a beautiful thing. These picks could protect the Republic for decades, perhaps centuries to come.

 

[Rod1]

The Court got Roe wrong and one doesn't have to be a religious nut to see that. I doubt you've ever tried to read that decision---otherwise you wouldn't make such a post.

Ok...

 

[waiguoren]

Ok...

Seriously, try to read it sometime.

 

[Rod1]

Funny, I just read that piece an hour ago. Great job by Strassel as usual.

And yes, it is a beautiful thing. These picks could protect the Republic for decades, perhaps centuries to come.

The republic is long dead, you can thank political parties for it.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

The Court got Roe wrong and one doesn't have to be a religious nut to see that. I doubt you've ever tried to read that decision---otherwise you wouldn't make such a post.

Roe isn't the current legal standard, it's Casey. And most of the push back is certainly from religious persons. The same 'originalist' arguments that are made against abortion are the same type of arguments Scalia made in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas where he concluded that the state could criminalize homosexual sodomy. It's actually crazy to think that the SCOTUS used originalism to sustain a state statute criminalizing homosexual sex in 1986 (Bowers) and only barely reversed the decision in 2003 (Lawrence). Originalism leads to inane conclusions (and worse, see Dred Scott..)

 

[Rational Poster]

I think USA should overturn gay marriage.

America cannot be true Christian country with gay marriage.

America is a secular society tho, we're not a theocracy.