undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsDer_Einzige1y ago0 comments

I'm guessing you think Thurgood Marshall is a political hack too?

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"?

0 comments

pyuser5831y ago

Thurgood Marshall was a widely respected trial attorney. He never held elected office. No he was not a political hack.

Warren had been elected governor of California on both a Republican and Democratic ticket. That’s the very definition of a politician. I don’t have a good definition of hack.

If our best lawyers are no better than used car salesmen, why are they so well regarded internationally?

151551y ago

> How do you go 10 years without even asking a question

Because your fellow jurists ask the questions for you.

He explained this position cogently: he does not want to influence the process or the case being presented to him.

When seniority-based speaking order changed during COVID virtual hearings, he started asking questions again.

Forgeties791y ago

When the GOP stole a seat and railroaded their third justice in for a partisan 6-3 SCOTUS he started asking questions again.

1 more reply

pyuser5831y ago

The justices can function just fine without asking questions. The courts work is almost written. The only important questions are dry, procedural ones. This is how courts work.

Der_EinzigeOP1y ago

Not in constitutional law hearings, this is the exact moment when oral arguments are extremely important. They write them down after they're made, not before.

Make better arguments please, you showed you were capable of it earlier when you wrote the top level justification. Why not do it here?

remarkEon1y ago

> this is the exact moment when oral arguments are extremely important. They write them down after they're made, not before.

The two parties and their friends have submitted mountains of briefings before oral argument. The arguments made in front of the court are already fully baked. Oral argument is only a signal on where the justices' thinking is taking them at the time. All of this is public, by the way. You can go read everything on your own (something more people in this thread should do).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

pyuser5831y ago

Thurgood Marshall was a widely respected trial attorney. He never held elected office. No he was not a political hack.

Warren had been elected governor of California on both a Republican and Democratic ticket. That’s the very definition of a politician. I don’t have a good definition of hack.

If our best lawyers are no better than used car salesmen, why are they so well regarded internationally?

151551y ago

> How do you go 10 years without even asking a question

Because your fellow jurists ask the questions for you.

He explained this position cogently: he does not want to influence the process or the case being presented to him.

When seniority-based speaking order changed during COVID virtual hearings, he started asking questions again.

Forgeties791y ago

When the GOP stole a seat and railroaded their third justice in for a partisan 6-3 SCOTUS he started asking questions again.

1 more reply

pyuser5831y ago

The justices can function just fine without asking questions. The courts work is almost written. The only important questions are dry, procedural ones. This is how courts work.

Der_EinzigeOP1y ago

Not in constitutional law hearings, this is the exact moment when oral arguments are extremely important. They write them down after they're made, not before.

Make better arguments please, you showed you were capable of it earlier when you wrote the top level justification. Why not do it here?

remarkEon1y ago

> this is the exact moment when oral arguments are extremely important. They write them down after they're made, not before.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse