I took a religious studies class in Zen, which was really about the philosophy of it. One day at lunch, I stopped to see the prof (who was also a friend) and told him I was utterly and completely lost and his only response was, “That’s really great!”
Given the subject matter, he was right, of course, but it left my head spinning for about 3 days.
She is extraordinary isn’t she?
You have an argument in favor of this?
The article you cited doesn’t offer much.
It quotes “Dan Glickman, a former secretary of agriculture and former congressman,” but even he says:
A diversity of law school background does not guarantee a diversity of personal experience, but more likely than not it does create a deeper reservoir of personal experiences and relationships.
Which doesn’t say much.
Moreover, when this “former secretary of agriculture and former congressman”
retired from national politics, do you know where he went right away? Yes, he became a fellow at Harvard.
Your article offers one other sort of argument:
In 1970, Sen. Roman Hruska defended high court nominee G. Harrold Carswell against the charge that he was mediocre. “There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They’re entitled to a little representation, aren’t they?” Hruska said.
A nice joke but further comment seems unnecessary.
Anyway, going back to Dan Glickman’s remark:
A diversity of law school background does not guarantee a diversity of personal experience
That’s exactly right.
To put some “diversity of personal experience” on the court, imagine electing a president and Senate who’d confirm any of the following:
Someone whose background is neither Christian nor Jewish; maybe a Muslim or a Buddhist or an atheist.
Along the same lines, someone whose family background is Chinese or Indian or Iraqi or – wait for it – mixed.
Someone whose sexual orientation is not the same as all the others.
Someone who maybe isn’t even a lawyer at all – but who knows how to hire good clerks.
I could continue but I think the point is clear enough. If you want diversity, there are more effective ways to go about achieving it than to complain about Harvard and Yale.
That said, I repeat:
You have an argument in favor of [your suggestion]?
Sorry, but they are not Christians, they are crooks and cynics who use stupid Christians, crooked Christians, and false Christians for their own criminal ends.
hahahahahahaha Yeah this had that same kind of relevance to reality.
I’d suggest that its part of Trump’s play to “prove” that the Russian investigation was a “hoax”. Flynn has been promised a pardon already – contingent on letting Flynn’s “lawyers”, and Barr, to use Flynn’s case to make it appear that there was a massive conspiracy to get Trump any way it could. (i.e. Obamagate)
Manafort might well want to get out of the house. And a prosecutor might well go along if he can deliver a Trump head for the prosecutor’s resume.
And Flynn might be behind bars with even more incentive.
Mine were core shit for my business degree… Statistics and Accounting. My dumbass tried to do both at the same time, distance learning… On top of five other overlapping English courses…
While working full time. And during a World Cup.
Another federal judge has the unredacted Mueller report and has been reported to want to talk to Bill Barr about it.
The beneficiary of a pardon needs to accept the pardon.
The Supreme Court stated in Burdick v. United States that acceptance of a pardon carries an “imputation of guilt and is a confession to such guilt”.
Absolutely. Sotomayor in particular has noted how judges bring their own personal experiences and background into the courtroom.
When all of the judges have had privileged backgrounds at elite schools, that’s not at all reflective of the nation.
We need to do better than just looking at race or gender as a proxy for representation of America.
The reason judges are able to reject prosecutorial attempts to drop charges – rule 48(a) in the rules of criminal procedure – was to establish “a judicial check on the corrupt, politically motivated dismissal of criminal charges; this was the fundamental reason given for limiting prosecutorial power to dismiss cases,” Gleeson wrote.
But…and…Sullivan already knew all-of-this. The man is no dummy and should have sentenced Flynn last year…or the year before. It truly is a mystery of this extreme deference to traitor Flynn
Interesting… If an innocent accepts a pardon, would they be committing perjury?
(Again, not trying to infer that Flynn is innocent through these hypotheticals, just curious)
In your own article, Dan Glickman says this:
A diversity of law school background does not guarantee a diversity of personal experience
Plus:
That may be your opinion, but it does not show that graduates of Stanford or Berkeley or NYU would add any meaningful diversity.
I think that sullivan will be happy to drag this out until Jan 21, 2021 at this point. He realizes that as long as Trump remains in office, Flynn is likely to get pardoned the moment he is sentenced to jail – so why not hold off on sentencing? Even if Flynn is given some kind of general pardon, Sullivan can still call him into court after Jan 21 to officially dismiss the case against him, and then ask him to explain his lies…
Nope. I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about the folks who scraped by at community college or a state University. They don’t even get considered because it’s all an old-boys network to get in.
Hell, even Obama went to Harvard.
Kinda puts the lie to the notion that, in America, anyone can grow up to be anything if they just work hard enough.
As already noted above, I’m open to the argument that not every person on the Supreme Court needs to be a lawyer.
Also noted above, I’m less open to Roman Hruska’s argument that, since they’re all lawyers, we should have some mediocre ones just to balance things out.
An ‘innocent’ man (not a legal term FYI) judged guilty by a court can refuse a pardon.
I only used the article for tracking where they all got their education.
Plenty of good folks are out there that are smart and knowledgeable that will never have a chance to go to one of the big schools.
And when 9 out of 9 Justices are from the same damned core schools, that says that there’s something wrong with the whole damned process.
Means that we’re only committed to the illusion of a Democracy.
Like Barr was chosen because of his WaPo Op-Ed? Which was only lacking in extensive citations of law and precedent. Something the amicus brief contained. Making it, you know, a legal brief, not an Op-Ed.