This is because "their class of people" were an honor-based society, in which reputation was the currency of power, and people with honor were expected to prioritize the national interests above their own. That is no longer the case.
In other words, there hasn't been a duel. So there should be another enforcement mechanism for making Presidents prioritize the nation above themselves that actually works.
Every SCOTUS Justice, except for for Thomas, was an absolute top-tier jurist at the time they were appointed.
Every SCOTUS Justice, except Thomas, could have received a tenured professorship at any law school in the country, a partnership at any law firm in the country, editorship of almost any law journal in the country, etc.
Any one, including Thomas, would have been welcome as a professor at the Unversities of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Sydney, etc; a magic circle UK law firm; or as arbiter in international trade.
Any one, including Thomas, would have been a shoe in for attorney general or solicited general of US. Any one, including Thomas, could have gotten a position as US Attorney in either a Democratic or Republican administration.
We have an insanely well qualified SCOTUS, mostly because of how arduous the confirmation process is.
How do you go 10 years without even asking a question (https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/supreme-court-claren...) if you're so good you could be an attorney general.
He's lazy, and that's even worse than just being a sex predator (Anita Hill) in the context of jurisprudence. He writes the shortest, shittiest, least well thought out opinions. He's phoning it in and has been for decades now.
Seems that our best justices are "political hacks" and our worst are those who are excellent lawyers. Maybe that's because lawyers are only slightly above "used car salesman" in terms of honesty?
Shit dude, If law credentials mattered, than Comey wouldn't have ever been an attorney (Cooley law, worst law school in america). Was he also a "political hack"?
How exactly do you think a qualified, non-partisan judge should decide cases?
I don’t know how justices should decide cases (not a constitutional law scholar, what are your credentials?) but I know that the majority in this one is wrong and should be impeached. The federalists are a cancer on the legal profession. Failure to self police has allowed them to fester when healthy communities would properly ostracize and treat such demented people but here we are.
Perhaps we can all band together to gift these clowns rvs and luxury vacations to get a public healthcare option for everyone?
Are any of the SCOTUS justices “unqualified”? I think all of them have the kinds of backgrounds you’d expect from a Supreme Court justice-law professorships, appellate courts, etc
Are they the best legal minds available? Arguably not, on both sides - in recent decades, both major parties prioritise political/ideological reliability over legal brilliance. Consider someone like Richard Posner, formerly of the 7th Circuit - many consider him one of the brightest legal minds of his generation, and surely the Supreme Court would have benefited from his membership in it - but he never had much hope, because he was too conservative for Democrats, not conservative enough for Republicans.
