3 ms·

I think it would be great if we had at least one non-lawyer on the Supreme Court. It would lead to opinions that more people could easily read. Alas, few peop

• lotu 15y ago
  It's because lawyers understand how very, very, very bad things can get when you put people without an intimate understanding of the functioning of the law in-charge of overseeing it. Using lawyers is just very bad.
  • willyt 15y ago
    What do you mean by very very very bad? Could you give an example.
    • einhverfr 15y ago
      Well, for starters, they might just start saying "see below" instead of "infra" and "see above" instead of "supra." Thus is the whole system unravelled.
      • mqqq 15y ago
        Wow, I can certainly see how that would be disastrous.
  • einhverfr 15y ago
    I didn't say that even a majority should be non-lawyers. I meant there should be non-lawyers on the court. It's not unprecedented. But in terms of overseeing the law, are you saying non-lawyers should be ineligible to run for Congress?
  • AutoCorrect 15y ago
    and there's the problem: if you have to have people that specialize in understanding the law, the law is too complex to be allowed to continue in that form. How can a 'normal' person abide by the law if they can't understand it?