apeppink (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Moreover most, nearly all everyday moral situations are exceedingly simple at base. It takes a corrupt lawyer (and, to be fair, others as well) to lie, dissemble and obfuscate as effectively as too many lawyers sadly and sadly effectively do.

apeppink (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The profession of law affords opportunities for corruption like no other, by orders of magnitude, and there are predictably and unfortunately no shortage of men and women ready willing and able to take advantage of that sad fact.Judges should typically not be lawyers. They should be men of character.

apeppink (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"Eh"??Are you a whacked out leftist Canadian?

desspec (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Out of all of the hundreds of judges across this country, which "few" do you consider free from corruption, and does it really follow the rest are corrupt? I suppose, in contemporary conservative tradition, that things like evidence aren't required, eh?

desspec (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

When compared to the Executive and Legislative branches, judges are shining examples of character. The only reason why this kind of discussion is noteworthy is because Judges. Hardly. Ever. Fight. Back. They are such easy targets, because they take their responsibilities seriously and don't engage in the kind of partisan slander that politicians - particularly the Republicans - and ESPECIALLY the Bush administration - engage in.We should be praising God for Judges.

Legend410c (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

That is the reason that just as we have Philosophers of a discipline (PhD) and Phil. of Medicine (MD), we also have Phil. of the Law (JD). In our common-law system this is critical, as the operation of the law requires education which is not needed elsewhere(LLB). People dislike lawyers because they don't understand or don't agree with how the law works. One would not presume to tell a doctor how to operate, so why do people feel justified in telling lawyers how to litigate?

Legend410c (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Judges must look to the Constitution in order to decide how a current-day issue should be modeled to it. Things that were previously acceptable in one point in our history (Plessy v. Ferguson) may become unacceptable in the future (Brown v. Board I&II). The Court must remain flexible, else it, and our Constitution will be considered out-of-touch and irrelevant. (Compare Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas) The legal community, by history, are the philosophers of the law.

apeppink (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

(which was never intended to have devolved into a 'profession' like it has), affords such continuing and pervasive opportunity for corruption, and there are far too few who can or do resist that temptation.

apeppink (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Judges should stick to law and not consider themselves the God Philosophers of the Nation, and they should have some character, as too few do. They should resolutely follow God's Explicit and Natural Law, the Constitution and the body of law generally.In addition having so many lawyers in positions this influential like this is socially suicidal. Lawyers have lousy reputations for very good reasons. No other profession/occupation, except possibly politician

mkl62 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Ain't it great? Her Honor is 78. Happy Birthday. 3-26-08.