• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Supreme Court include defense attorneys?

Should the Supreme Court include defense attorneys?

  • Total voters
    16
shrubnose said:
[/COLOR][/B]



She didn't 'defend a rapist', she defended a person who had been accused of rape.
Click to expand...

Anyone who unlawfully fondles a minor is a rapist, perhaps not by the legal definition, but is in every other sense of the word.
 
TurtleDude said:
There is a major reason why there are more prosecutors (Alito was the US Attorney for NJ IIRC) than defense attorneys on the USSC

almost everyone on the supreme court was a federal appellate judge

Ginsberg,
Breyer, THomas, Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kennedy, Scalia (RIP). Kagan was not.

one of the ways to get noticed by politicians is to be a US Attorney or a big county Prosecutor. That already means you have some political juice as well. and it gets you plenty of publicity. and you are seen as "being tough on crime" which makes you an easy sell when your congressman or senator recommends you to the WH to be a judge.

Defense attorneys rarely are in the public eye unless they get a huge case-like OJ or William Kennedy Smith or Mike Vick. but that's one case while for example, the Cincinnati/Hamilton County Prosecutor-Joe Deters is in the public's eyes constantly-currently for the U of C cop who shot an unarmed drug dealer under very suspect circumstances etc. Our US attorney (acting USA Ben Glassman) gets interviewed everytime there is a big federal case. our best defense attorneys, maybe once or twice a year if they are lucky.

the other people who end up being federal appellate judges are high level law professors. Guido Calabresi, Robert Bork were two Yale Sterling professors (their top endowed chair) who ended up being court of appeals judges. Kagan was provost at harvard and then the SG. Some of the names you hear constantly for USSC who are not currently judges are Paul Clement ( former SG) Peter Keisler (former acting AG and top US SC advocate), Senator Ted Cruz (top of his class at HLS) or on the left Akhil Amar (Yale Law-maybe the top law professor on constitutional issues in the nation) Pam Karlan (Stanford Law)


Defense attorneys just don't have the public eye or more importantly, the eyes of politicians
Click to expand...
You summarized nicely my initial thoughts why defense attorneys aren't often included.
 
jamesrage said:
I say other. I have mixed feelings on this. Because a lot of these people knowingly defend people they know are guilty like Hillary Clinton(I don't give a rats ass what the left wing snopes says, Clinton is on audio talking bout it) did when she defended a rapist and got him a slap on the wrist or Debo Adegbile that Obama tried to nominate to head DOJ civil rights division who knowingly helped a cop killer weasel out of his death sentence. Some defense lawyers use the but my client is insane or had a bad child hood or some other mumbo jumbo in order to help them weasel out of their sentence .Defense attorneys like that are scum and should never be anywhere near the supreme court.I don't give a rats ass that lawyers try to argue its ethical for them to provide the best defense possible for any client. Lawyers like that don't have any morals and care more about the all mighty dollar than doing whats right. They the worst candidate for supreme court justice.
Now the defense lawyers who defend clients they believe are innocent and believe in the literal interpretation what the constitution and what its authors have said regarding various amendments yeah those people would get my support for supreme court judge.
Click to expand...
Everything you say can be true, and sometimes is. It can also sometimes be true for prosecutors, and sometimes is. There are plenty of prosecutors as well who will throw anyone under the bus if it means an easy win that they can add to their resume for future personal advancement.
 
shrubnose said:
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it place any restriction on people who have worked as defense attorneys serving on the U.S. Supreme Court?

Fill us in.

This is yet another time wasting poll that will accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...

shrubnose said:
100 % wrong.

In the USA attorneys defend people who are innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

shrubnose said:
[/COLOR][/B]



She didn't 'defend a rapist', she defended a person who had been accused of rape.
Click to expand...

spud_meister said:
Anyone who unlawfully fondles a minor is a rapist, perhaps not by the legal definition, but is in every other sense of the word.
Click to expand...
It accomplished getting you to read and respond three times. :lol:
 
The SC should be made up of people who can interpret the law/Constitution and make rulings based on that. The SC should legislate from the bench. I don't care if the person on the SC is a defense attorney, prosecution attorney, etc. They need the legal background to be able to interpret the laws.

It is interesting how someone can read a law/Constitution and come up with a different interpretation of what it means.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't much care. I do think that, whoever that defense atty appointee might be, he/she would face a gauntlet of unprecedented rancor from Democrats. Defense attys defend guilty people. Can you just imagine how he would be attacked? I sure can.

It wouldn't be pretty...
Click to expand...

Erm, us Democrats are usually the ones demanding that everybody have rights. Even people with brown skin worshiping the wrong version of the same god.
 
Deuce said:
Erm, us Democrats are usually the ones demanding that everybody have rights. Even people with brown skin worshiping the wrong version of the same god.
Click to expand...

The ever-dwindling list of rights you approve of, anyway . . .
 
Harshaw said:
The ever-dwindling list of rights you approve of, anyway . . .
Click to expand...

:roll: Sure, which ones have I decided to drop lately?
 
Deuce said:
:roll: Sure, which ones have I decided to drop lately?
Click to expand...

Democrats aren't big on a whole slew of rights these days -- keeping and bearing arms, rights of conscience/religion, numerous rights of choice (including eating what you want, carrying health insurance if you want, etc.), speech they don't approve of, the list goes on . . .
 
radcen said:
Should the Supreme Court include defense attorneys?
Click to expand...

There's no reason why it shouldn't, but being a defense attorney doesn't give you any particular expertise or perspective conducive to the role.

Thinking that a practice specialty would only demonstrates a misunderstanding of what the practice of law is, how courts work, and what the role of a justice is.

But, that's Vox for ya.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Democrats aren't big on a whole slew of rights these days -- keeping and bearing arms, rights of conscience/religion, numerous rights of choice (including eating what you want, carrying health insurance if you want, etc.), speech they don't approve of, the list goes on . . .
Click to expand...

Sure buddy. If I call you an asshole for saying an asshole thing, that means I'm attacking your right to free speech.

Go find a safe space. On Freep or whatever.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I think it would be great to have half of the justices that were defense attorneys.
Click to expand...

that's almost never likely to happen. RBG's credentials before being a judge was being the national attorney for women's rights project at the ACLU. This advocacy of an important DNC interest group, was probably the main reason why she was elevated to a circuit judge by Jimmy carter. Defense attorneys represent an interest group that really don't excite politicians of either party.
 
Deuce said:
Sure buddy. If I call you an asshole for saying an asshole thing, that means I'm attacking your right to free speech.
Click to expand...

Never claimed anything of the sort.

But when you want people jailed (or otherwise legally harassed) for saying things you don't like, as various prominent Democrats and other "progressives" have proposed for "climate change deniers," or those who push for "hate speech" laws, or actually introducing a Constitutional amendment to partially repeal the First Amendment, you've got real, palpable hostility to free speech. :shrug:
 
Harshaw said:
Democrats aren't big on a whole slew of rights these days -- keeping and bearing arms, rights of conscience/religion, numerous rights of choice (including eating what you want, carrying health insurance if you want, etc.), speech they don't approve of, the list goes on . . .
Click to expand...

Eating what you want??? Did I miss a story?
 
MaggieD said:
I don't much care. I do think that, whoever that defense atty appointee might be, he/she would face a gauntlet of unprecedented rancor from Democrats. Defense attys defend guilty people. Can you just imagine how he would be attacked? I sure can.

It wouldn't be pretty...
Click to expand...

So? Prosecutors put innocent men behind bars.
 
Deuce said:
Sure buddy. If I call you an asshole for saying an asshole thing, that means I'm attacking your right to free speech.

Go find a safe space. On Freep or whatever.
Click to expand...

A student was suspended for advocating on-campus CCW
https://www.thefire.org/cases/hamli...d-after-advocating-concealed-carry-on-campus/

A student council at Tufts rejected a request to make a disconcertingly vague "hate speech" guideline more specific.
https://www.thefire.org/tufts-student-senate-rejects-free-speech-resolution/

Art that has the KKK must be covered up, because art shouldn't be provocative.
https://www.thefire.org/fire-notes-...t-censorship-as-salem-state-shutters-exhibit/

Student journalism is under constant threat from universities.
https://www.thefire.org/report-threats-to-student-media-disturbingly-routine/

The list goes on and on and on. Free speech is under attack on many campuses across the country.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's almost never likely to happen. RBG's credentials before being a judge was being the national attorney for women's rights project at the ACLU. This advocacy of an important DNC interest group, was probably the main reason why she was elevated to a circuit judge by Jimmy carter. Defense attorneys represent an interest group that really don't excite politicians of either party.
Click to expand...
...and this is why it would be even less likely in today's political climate than in years past. Which is a shame. The court should have a variety of experiences and perspectives.
 
I voted YES, in support of the prospect of defense attorneys serving on SCOTUS.

One lawyer posted that Ted Cruz finished 1st in his Class at Harvard Law. Certainly, he distinguished himself .... graduating Valedictorian at a small private Texas High School, Cum Laude at Princeton, and Summa Cum Laude at Harvard Law, as well as wining numerous debate awards and serving as Editor of The Harvard Law Review. I don't think Ted graduated 1st in Class at Harvard Law. Raphael Cruz biographies frequently need correcting. For instance, the part about his parents meeting at Rice University - Apparently Raphael's mom met her first husband at Rice, not Raphael's dad. Raphael mom and her first husband moved to England. After separating, she became pregnant from another man. That son, an older half-brother to Raphael, died before age 2. She moved to New Orleans, where she met Raphael's father. They moved to Canada... blah blah blah. They might not have married before Raphael's birth. Raphael's father had already abandoned his two daughters from his first marriage. One of Raphael's older half-sisters died a drug addict in Pennsylvania. The other, a Pediatrician, maintains a vibrant practice in Texas. Back to Raphael's dad... he left his 2nd family in Canada... reconciling later, and moving to the Houston area.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
I voted YES, in support of the prospect of defense attorneys serving on SCOTUS.

One lawyer posted that Ted Cruz finished 1st in his Class at Harvard Law. Certainly, he distinguished himself .... graduating Valedictorian at a small private Texas High School, Cum Laude at Princeton, and Summa Cum Laude at Harvard Law, as well as wining numerous debate awards and serving as Editor of The Harvard Law Review. I don't think Ted graduated 1st in Class at Harvard Law. Raphael Cruz biographies frequently need correcting. For instance, the part about his parents meeting at Rice University - Apparently Raphael's mom met her first husband at Rice, not Raphael's dad. Raphael mom and her first husband moved to England. After separating, she became pregnant from another man. That son, an older half-brother to Raphael, died before age 2. She moved to New Orleans, where she met Raphael's father. They moved to Canada... blah blah blah. They might not have married before Raphael's birth. Raphael's father had already abandoned his two daughters from his first marriage. One of Raphael's older half-sisters died a drug addict in Pennsylvania. The other, a Pediatrician, maintains a vibrant practice in Texas. Back to Raphael's dad... he left his 2nd family in Canada... reconciling later, and moving to the Houston area.
Click to expand...

summa cum laude is rare at HLS. Cruz was MCL: CJ Roberts graduated first in his class and was Magna. Two colleagues in my old office were both HLS Magnas, they said that most years there were no Summa graduates. Scalia also was a magna.
 
TurtleDude said:
summa cum laude is rare at HLS. Cruz was MCL: CJ Roberts graduated first in his class and was Magna. Two colleagues in my old office were both HLS Magnas, they said that most years there were no Summa graduates. Scalia also was a magna.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I stand corrected in having attributed SCL instead of MCL status at HLS to Raphael Cruz.
 
One of the many things making it far harder to defend an accused individual rather than to prosecute them is that virtually all judges are either ex-prosecutors or came from a civil law background. (And of course, quite a few of the politicians that make the laws the judges must apply are also ex-prosecutors, which is another contributing reason for our hopelessly destructive and ultimately useless "tough on crime" fetish).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom