From the beginning, the Supreme Court has had a different relationship with state courts than with lower federal courts, with relevant takeaways for our modern understanding of the Court's role
The Supreme Court would greatly benefit from the appointment of justices with state court and legislative experience. It would also benefit from the appointment of more justices with extensive experience as litigators in trial, as well as appellate courts. (That experience was invaluable in shaping the perspective of Justice Stevens.)
A court whose justices reflects a wide range of legal backgrounds and practice would be far better equipped to appreciate the effects of its decisions. That would lead to better opinions and more fair results.
Great read. The procedural mechanics of lawmaking, writs and stays, have always struck me as equally if not more relevant than the substantive outcome of cases. The power to decide which cases matter is the only power that matters, and it remains firmly limited to those selected through naked corruption or malfeasance, who then behave corruptly, both in their personal lives and in their jurisprudence. John Locke's nondelegation doctrine does not say what Gorsuch wants it to say. There is no individual right to bear arms etc., to say nothing of the fact that the Constitution should not be treated as the legal equivalent of a grocery-store checklist.
The Supreme Court would greatly benefit from the appointment of justices with state court and legislative experience. It would also benefit from the appointment of more justices with extensive experience as litigators in trial, as well as appellate courts. (That experience was invaluable in shaping the perspective of Justice Stevens.)
A court whose justices reflects a wide range of legal backgrounds and practice would be far better equipped to appreciate the effects of its decisions. That would lead to better opinions and more fair results.
Great read. The procedural mechanics of lawmaking, writs and stays, have always struck me as equally if not more relevant than the substantive outcome of cases. The power to decide which cases matter is the only power that matters, and it remains firmly limited to those selected through naked corruption or malfeasance, who then behave corruptly, both in their personal lives and in their jurisprudence. John Locke's nondelegation doctrine does not say what Gorsuch wants it to say. There is no individual right to bear arms etc., to say nothing of the fact that the Constitution should not be treated as the legal equivalent of a grocery-store checklist.