Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (91693)	12/21/2004 2:20:18 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793754

I'm not sure if it is really supposed to be a reply to what you quoted from my post or if your just taking the conversation on in another direction. Either way is fine with me. We both know that the day is never going to come where non-lawyers sit on the SCOTUS and interpret the Constitution, so are we just chewing the fat, or is the conversation going anywhere meaningful? You don't have to be a lawyer to have a coherent philosophy of jurisprudence, but if not, chances are you are something like a Ph.D. in political science or legal history, or an extremely well read autodidact. I know a lot of judges, but only one or two I would say actually have a coherent philosophy of jurisprudence. Personally, I am far from an expert in jurisprudence, but I do like Benjamin Cardozo's The Nature of the Judicial Process. xroads.virginia.edu