US Supreme Court too liberal by representation

[SmokeyDan]

Of the 9 members all but one are from the north east, the only non northeastern member is Californian.

Despite very low proportion of population, three justices are Jews.

The remaining six are at least nominally Catholic.

The evangelicals, protestant Christians are unrepresented despite being the largest religious group in the nation.

The south, despite having 1/3 the population a significant chunk of the growth of the economy are also unrepresented.

Liberals claim this court is too conservative, but the reality is if it made up a more true representation of America, it should be more conservative.

 

[UncleBuck]

http://www.xvideos.com/profiles/smokeydan

About me:

Here to watch video clips and chat, if you want to message me you can leave a comment or if you have kik, bbm or whatsapp send me your contact info and we can chat via any of those messengers.

 

[UncleBuck]

http://motherless.com/groups/member/SmokeyDan

 

[UncleBuck]

I'd rather fuck my sister

makes sense.

 

[desert dude]

Of the 9 members all but one are from the north east, the only non northeastern member is Californian.

Despite very low proportion of population, three justices are Jews.

The remaining six are at least nominally Catholic.

The evangelicals, protestant Christians are unrepresented despite being the largest religious group in the nation.

The south, despite having 1/3 the population a significant chunk of the growth of the economy are also unrepresented.

Liberals claim this court is too conservative, but the reality is if it made up a more true representation of America, it should be more conservative.

My problem with the Supreme court and the federal courts is that it is filled to the rafters with Ivy leaguers. I think the entire Supreme court is populated by Harvard grads. They have as much in common with the people of America as Malia Obama, and chinless Clinton.

Vote for me for president and I pledge that every judicial nominee will be a graduate of a top tier state law school.

 

[UncleBuck]

My problem with the Supreme court and the federal courts is that it is filled to the rafters with Ivy leaguers. I think the entire Supreme court is populated by Harvard grads. They have as much in common with the people of America as Malia Obama, and chinless Clinton.

Vote for me for president and I pledge that every judicial nominee will be a graduate of a top tier state law school.

you'll do as well (read: poorly) as david duke.

 

[schuylaar]

http://www.xvideos.com/profiles/smokeydan

About me:

Here to watch video clips and chat, if you want to message me you can leave a comment or if you have kik, bbm or whatsapp send me your contact info and we can chat via any of those messengers.

smokeydan lives in tennessee.

 

[UncleBuck]

smokeydan lives in tennessee.

they don't make bathrooms that size in london.

http://www.pof.com/member75192486.htm

 

[Wilksey]

Vote for me for president and I pledge that every judicial nominee will be a graduate of a top tier state law school.

I'd support that.

Our "supreme court" is a fucking joke....just like the rest of our "government".

Ruth Bader Cuntstein and Dikey Sotomayor have been about as impartial as a Klan member would be concerning blacks.

 

[SmokeyDan]

UncleBuck, nice contributions to the thread. I see you have no valid nor intelligent reply to the utter lack of substantive diversity in the high court.

This is going to sound crazy, but I don't think the bench needs to be limited to lawyers only.

They decide on many things which are outside of the expertise of law.

There should be a couple of scientists, two elite business professionals, and maybe 4 lawyers and one member of clergy.

But yes, all people from the north east, all catholic except for 3 jews is pathetically unrepresentative of America.

 

[Glaucoma]

This is going to sound crazy, but I don't think the bench needs to be limited to lawyers only.

They decide on many things which are outside of the expertise of law.

There should be a couple of scientists, two elite business professionals, and maybe 4 lawyers and one member of clergy.

Indeed, that sounds entirely crazy. Insane, in fact.

I want people extremely well versed interpreting the law. I understand the underlying principle, though. I've always been a fan of a multidisciplinary approach. But they gotta be lawyers first and foremost.

 

[SmokeyDan]

they don't make bathrooms that size in london.

http://www.pof.com/member75192486.htm

Shit in Tennessee they don't even have bathrooms.

I love how butthurt this post seems to have made you.

Point out an extremely valid point and you post a bunch of irrelevant nonsense.

Out of zillions of websites a few have the same name as me!

My name is Dan.

I like to smoke weed.

Is that too fucking complex for you?

 

[SmokeyDan]

Indeed, that sounds entirely crazy. Insane, in fact.

I want people extremely well versed interpreting the law. I understand the underlying principle, though. I've always been a fan of a multidisciplinary approach. But they gotta be lawyers first and foremost.

Well, the law is simple.

The facts is what are difficult, more specifically how they relate to the simple law.

Law is black and white. It's there in paper plain as day.

 

[UncleBuck]

UncleBuck, nice contributions to the thread. I see you have no valid nor intelligent reply to the utter lack of substantive diversity in the high court.

yes, we get it.

you feel there are too many jews on the court.

speaking of utter lack of substance, can you actually outline how any of this has affected a single one of their decisions?

 

[Glaucoma]

Well, the law is simple.

The facts is what are difficult, more specifically how they relate to the simple law.

Law is black and white. It's there in paper plain as day.

Capturing the spirit of a law on paper in such a way that nobody can weasel around or be caused harm by is incredibly difficult. We need the best lawyers in the land deciding any grey areas and I don't really care where they come from. They just better know their shit.

 

[sheskunk]

smokeydan lives in tennessee.

Officer in training. ^^^^

 

[SmokeyDan]

yes, we get it.

you feel there are too many jews on the court.

speaking of utter lack of substance, can you actually outline how any of this has affected a single one of their decisions?

Sotomayor is a ardent leftist. She has had holdings as such.

In a country with 40-50% self identifying as evangelical christian, they should have a representative on the court.

With 90+ million in states with "southern culture" about 45 million as "mid - western" and those of the west outside of the Pacific Coast being mostly red states unrepresented. ..

There would be more people with conservative perspective deciding on the issues, numbnuts.

Instead, we have those raving traditional conservative northeastern catholics on the court as the sole christian persuasion.

And three jews with 5.5 million out of 340+million people in this nation.

One, maybe two Jews would be more than enough to remain representative.

 

[UncleBuck]

Sotomayor is a ardent leftist. She has had holdings as such.

In a country with 40-50% self identifying as evangelical christian, they should have a representative on the court.

With 90+ million in states with "southern culture" about 45 million as "mid - western" and those of the west outside of the Pacific Coast being mostly red states unrepresented. ..

There would be more people with conservative perspective deciding on the issues, numbnuts.

Instead, we have those raving traditional conservative northeastern catholics on the court as the sole christian persuasion.

And three jews with 5.5 million out of 340+million people in this nation.

One, maybe two Jews would be more than enough to remain representative.

so you're arguing for judicial activism, even some type of christian sharia law.

you have yet to name a single decision that you feel was botched due to the religion or home state of the justices.

even a mouthy asshole like me rarely objects to a SCOTUS decision that doesn't go the way i think it should have.

 

[SmokeyDan]

Capturing the spirit of a law on paper in such a way that nobody can weasel around or be caused harm by is incredibly difficult. We need the best lawyers in the land deciding any grey areas and I don't really care where they come from. They just better know their shit.

Those justices who are lawyers can serve to write the law. The others can help them decide how they apply it to facts.

As it stands, the clerks, who are fresh graduates of law school write the opinions now.

Look at abortion law in terms of how the court has ruled on it. It requires much more understanding of medical science than legal science to both write and interpret that law.

Law isn't terribly difficult to practice. We have a glut of lawyers. That's why new lawyers may take $12/hour paralegal jobs with their fresh JD.

New MD's don't have the same issue.

It's why we have socialized practice care for people in the need of legal services, but not medical.

And the socialized legal care is designed as welfare to lawyers.

 

[SmokeyDan]

so you're arguing for judicial activism, even some type of christian sharia law.

you have yet to name a single decision that you feel was botched due to the religion or home state of the justices.

even a mouthy asshole like me rarely objects to a SCOTUS decision that doesn't go the way i think it should have.

Not at all. But let us not pretend that a persons background affects their jurisprudence.

I'm asking for a representative court that reflects the makeup of America on substance, not superficial things like penises and vaginas. Whit or black and brown skin.

I'm asking for a court that actually reflects the national makeup.