Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Which current Supreme Court justices are DUMB by historical standards?
Daily Caller ^ | 09/26/2013 | JAMIE WEINSTEIN

Posted on 09/26/2013 9:04:48 PM PDT by richardb72

Courts are being dumbed down because politicians are trying to keep the smartest and most persuasive judges off the bench, argues conservative economist John Lott in his recently released book, ”Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Justices Off the Bench.”

“While confirmations have been getting tougher for all the nominees, smarter, more influential nominees have had the hardest time getting confirmed,” Lott told The Daily Caller in an interview about his book. “There is a simple reason for this. Judges who understand the law and are articulate may be able to convince other judges hearing cases to change how they vote. They may also write opinions that influence other judges around the country.”

Lott, who also authored the best-selling “More Guns, Less Crime,” says the statistical record bears out his claim.

“For example, someone from a top 10 law school, who graduated in the top 10 percent of their class, and who clerked on both a Circuit Court and the Supreme Court, it takes them 158 percent longer to get confirmed,” Lott said. . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; kagan; lott; obama; scotus; secondamendment; sotomayor; supremecourt

1 posted on 09/26/2013 9:04:48 PM PDT by richardb72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Elena Kagan no contest


2 posted on 09/26/2013 9:05:43 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Anthony Kennedy is an utter dumbbell who regularly refutes his own arguments in court decisions.


3 posted on 09/26/2013 9:08:40 PM PDT by Dr. Thorne ("How long, O Lord, holy and true?" - Rev. 6:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

The “Wise Latina” and Roberts should make the list too.


4 posted on 09/26/2013 9:11:55 PM PDT by Gil4 (Progressives - Trying to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand since 1848)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gil4

Add Ginsburg and we have a majority.


5 posted on 09/26/2013 9:12:57 PM PDT by Gil4 (Progressives - Trying to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand since 1848)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gil4

I think Roberts is pretty smart. He was very impressive in the confirmation hearings. Less so in the Obamacare decision. Don’t confuse compromised with stupid.


6 posted on 09/26/2013 9:13:17 PM PDT by Defiant (A rainbow curtain has descended upon the west, from Munich to San Francisco.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Obviously, that genius John Roberts is clueless when it comes to the underlying philosopy the Constitution is built on.


7 posted on 09/26/2013 9:17:34 PM PDT by Crucial (Tolerance at the expense of equal treatment is the path to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crucial; Defiant

I agree with Defiant. I think Roberts was compromised.


8 posted on 09/26/2013 9:24:21 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan, Roberts, and Kennedy.


9 posted on 09/26/2013 9:31:54 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Well he named two of three that first came to my mind....Kagan and Sotomayer. Lott left out the MOST obvious (based on his recent decisions) John roberts


10 posted on 09/26/2013 9:37:02 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Experientially John Roberts is an a%%. Period end of story. Any man who is intellectually as dishonest as Roberts should NEVER be on the court.


11 posted on 09/26/2013 9:38:06 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

The noble Hispanic woman?


12 posted on 09/26/2013 9:40:26 PM PDT by AD from SpringBay (http://jonah2eight.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

I can believe this.


13 posted on 09/26/2013 9:47:38 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Scalia and Thomas are not.....not sure about Roberts (issue with his adopted kids, NSA got him) and the rest apparently know noth’n


14 posted on 09/26/2013 9:53:39 PM PDT by svcw (obama lied my plan died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crucial

NSA spying did its job on him


15 posted on 09/26/2013 9:54:22 PM PDT by svcw (obama lied my plan died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

The four liberal robots (decisions always predictable)

Kennedy

Roberts


16 posted on 09/26/2013 9:58:11 PM PDT by A_Former_Democrat (LEAVE THE ZIMMERMANS ALONE . . . NOT guilty . . .you LOST Now SHUT UP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Almost the entire scotus is from Harvard, Yale or Stanford.


17 posted on 09/26/2013 10:07:17 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

My mistake.

It is Harvard Princeton and Stanford.

“Harvard lays claim to the most Supreme Court justices — five went there for law school. Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor both chose Princeton for their undergraduate degrees; Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer went west for Stanford. John Paul Stevens is the only justice with midwest connections — he went to the University of Chicago for undergrad and Northwestern for law school.”


18 posted on 09/26/2013 10:10:37 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Thorne
Anybody remember the Lovenstein Institute Hoax?

Forget tests of intelligence. Focus on the virtue and adherence to constitutional law of these people. If they're stupid, they are excused from stupid decisions. I prefer to call them evil when they cater to evil.

19 posted on 09/26/2013 10:15:51 PM PDT by Loud Mime (Liberal: A person who charges their grandchildren for today's party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

stupid enough to be compromised.


20 posted on 09/26/2013 10:57:51 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: richardb72; Grampa Dave; Carry_Okie; tubebender; budwiesest
None of 'em will ever hold a candle to former CA Repub Governor Earl Warren!!! POTUS Dwight D. Eisenhower's biggest mistake ever!!!

The runner up to Chief Justice Warren, is Chief Justice Roberts!!!

21 posted on 09/26/2013 11:24:15 PM PDT by SierraWasp (I pledge to the USSA & 2 the democrazy for witch it stands, a nation with liberalism & misery 4 all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72
I think too many people on this thread are confusing evil with stupid.

Kagan is clearly not very bright. There's no doubt the rest of them are pretty smart. Four of them simply don't care what the Constitution actually says. Roberts' 0bamacare ruling is a typical liberal opinion: facile, contradictory, and ultimately rather silly. That doesn't mean he's stupid.

22 posted on 09/27/2013 12:12:07 AM PDT by FredZarguna (With bell, book, and candle, please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, and the unwise Latina Sotomajor...


23 posted on 09/27/2013 12:44:58 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Roberts, Kagan.


24 posted on 09/27/2013 2:06:02 AM PDT by AdaGray (Primary Them All)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

All of them


25 posted on 09/27/2013 5:36:00 AM PDT by al baby (Hi Mom ;Sarcasm is my bidness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72
Hm, good question.
I'd have to say that anyone affirming Raich v. Gonzales would have to be:
Stevens
Kennedy
Souter
Ginsburg
Breyer
Scalia
The reason for this is that this ruling basically said the federal government's ability to regulate intrastate commerce, stemming from the ability to regulate interstate commerce, is still valid even when that regulation prohibits interstate commerce, even if this would "pull the rug out from under them" because, well, we say so.

That decision was an insult to logical thinking. (False implies true!)


Kelo was terribly unjust, though not without some legal-reasoning, and could be alleviated if eminent-domain were used to seize all of the justices's properties (via projections, of course). I think you'd be amazed at how quick the Supreme Court could act once its members were directly influenced/impacted/inconvenienced by one of their rulings.


I'm sure I could think of more.

26 posted on 09/27/2013 8:14:25 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw
I have to disagree on Scalia: concurrence on Raich was inexcusable.
27 posted on 09/27/2013 8:19:14 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson