Who would you rather have as President?

[bdude]

After reading many court briefs/opinions, etc....I came to the conclusion that I would much rather vote for a Supreme Court Justice than for a Congressman/Senator/Governor. The understanding and thought a justice must put into every decision goes above and beyond any critical thinking that I believe either the Executive or Legislative Branch ever does.

Any thoughts?

 

[Infohawk]

You seem to think there's more critical thinking with the judiciary because you've read the briefs that show the justices reasoning. Have you read policy papers or listened to internal debates at the white house? The work product of the judiciary tends to be intellectual and technical while the work product of the other branches comes off as simple and jingoistic. Why? Because politicians are elected and judges aren't. Politicians have to destill their decisions into simple concepts and emotional messages to get elected; judges don't. Judges are addressing a more sophisticated audience: other judges, clerks and lawyers. But the actual problems that face the political branches are just as complicated.

Also, do not overestimate the sophistication of judicial decision-making. There is a well-respected school of thought called legal realism. It says that judges make gut / political decisions and later have their clerks write out the justification. It's not the whole story, but it is part of it.

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
You seem to think there's more critical thinking with the judiciary because you've read the briefs that show the justices reasoning. Have you read policy papers or listened to internal debates at the white house? The work product of the judiciary tends to be intellectual and technical while the work product of the other branches comes off as simple and jingoistic. Why? Because politicians are elected and judges aren't. Politicians have to destill their decisions into simple concepts and emotional messages to get elected; judges don't. Judges are addressing a more sophisticated audience: other judges, clerks and lawyers. But the actual problems that face the political branches are just as complicated.

Also, do not overestimate the sophistication of judicial decision-making. There is a well-respected school of thought called legal realism. It says that judges make gut / political decisions and later have their clerks write out the justification. It's not the whole story, but it is part of it.

I have read policy papers and whatnot, and they are indeed quite complex. However it isn't the President making these papers, but the numerous analysts working for the Whitehouse and the President. The President often at most recieves a brief that he simply digests and spits out whenever appropriate. No doubt the political problems faced by the Legislative and Executive are quite large, but what I am addressing is the nature of critical thinking used by a Justice (Rehnquist) vs. a Governor (Bush).

And although the Justices are directing their opinions to others within the legal branch, the fact of the matter remains that all of their decisions directly affect the polity. I will also agree with you that the legal clerks play a large part in the opinion-creating process, but nevertheless I would never portray any of the justices as intellectual lightweights.

 

[Tom]

Can you imagine a lunatic(intelligent,yes, but nuts) like Scalia as President ?

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: bdude
After reading many court briefs/opinions, etc....I came to the conclusion that I would much rather vote for a Supreme Court Justice than for a Congressman/Senator/Governor. The understanding and thought a justice must put into every decision goes above and beyond any critical thinking that I believe either the Executive or Legislative Branch ever does.

Any thoughts?

I don't think you have put enough thought into what you wrote. You inidcate we should vote for supreme court members and not the legislature or Governor. First, do you really mean Governor or President. Since you mention Congressman, Senator, and Rehnquist, I assume you actually mean President.

Secondly, what you wrote can be taken to mean that we should elect the judiciary but the executive and legislative branches should be appointed to lifetime positions, though I believe you really mean that we should scrap the legislative and executive branches and just have a judiary. I think that is an awful idea. I like the separation of powers that having different branches of government provide. Having one branch of government strips away the checks and balances that are built into our current system. Also, since you don't seem to like the people we currently elect, why do you think the people we elect to the Supreme Court would be any better? Do you think we would do better choosing just 9 people when the 536 people we elect are poor? Btw, you do know the 9 supreme court justices that you like are appointed by the president, who you don't seem to like, and approved by the congress, that you also don't seem to like.

I think you need to put more work into your hypothesis before you reach your conclusion.

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: smc13

Originally posted by: bdude
After reading many court briefs/opinions, etc....I came to the conclusion that I would much rather vote for a Supreme Court Justice than for a Congressman/Senator/Governor. The understanding and thought a justice must put into every decision goes above and beyond any critical thinking that I believe either the Executive or Legislative Branch ever does.

Any thoughts?

I don't think you have put enough thought into what you wrote. You inidcate we should vote for supreme court members and not the legislature or Governor. First, do you really mean Governor or President. Since you mention Congressman, Senator, and Rehnquist, I assume you actually mean President.

Secondly, what you wrote can be taken to mean that we should elect the judiciary but the executive and legislative branches should be appointed to lifetime positions, though I believe you really mean that we should scrap the legislative and executive branches and just have a judiary. I think that is an awful idea. I like the separation of powers that having different branches of government provide. Having one branch of government strips away the checks and balances that are built into our current system. Also, since you don't seem to like the people we currently elect, why do you think the people we elect to the Supreme Court would be any better? Do you think we would do better choosing just 9 people when the 536 people we elect are poor? Btw, you do know the 9 supreme court justices that you like are appointed by the president, who you don't seem to like, and approved by the congress, that you also don't seem to like.

I think you need to put more work into your hypothesis before you reach your conclusion.

Heh, methinks you read a little too much into what I said. I was merely hypothesizing a choice for presidency between Bush and Rehnquist, nothing more.

 

[Kibbo]

There are briefcases of work available for the President to do. Whether this president reads them all is something we will never know. He may just listen to his aides' advice and say "make it so."