You Don't Have To Be A Lawyer...

...to have a valid opinion.

I say this because in my looking over commentary on Kelo v New London I have come upon quite a few folks who claim that they cannot have a "real" opinion about the case because they are not lawyers. I feel like giving these people a good shaking (or a thrashing...I'm pretty worked up.) Our Constitution is not a document "of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers." Its meaning is every bit up to all of us. It really pisses me off that A) the Supreme Court is all lawyers, and B) If anyone else is ever suggested for the job they are lawyers AND politicians. (Like that is a better mix or something.)

The founding of our nation was not only an exercise in law, although that was obviously an important component. It was primarily an exercise in political philosophy. This court has proven time and again that they know next to nothing about our founding philosophy. Really. The Supreme Court, as a group, is as ignorant as dirt about the subject. Scalia is the only one I ever heard speak intelligently on the subject. Anyone else I've heard has been an utter embarrassment. The truth is law is not necessarily an intellectually demanding field of study. Any idiot can be a lawyer. (If you have spent any time around law students you know what I say is gospel truth.) In the same manner any idiot can be an elected official. (Everyone knows this to be a fact.) What do you get when you mix idiot lawyers with idiot politicians? Idiot judges, of course. Now who, in this day and age, can honestly believe that near complete idiots cannot reach the very top of American political life? So, you shouldn't be amazed or worried to find out there are idiot Supreme Court justices. There always has been and there always will be idiot Supreme Court justices.

What you should be worried about is what political philosophy these particular idiots are substituting for that of the founding. It doesn't seem to be one that thinks much of your rights.

Enjoy.