Earlier this month I posted some thoughts about The trouble with experts in which I commented somewhat unfavorably on a column by George Will regarding the Harriet Miers nomination. I was interested to see that John Hinderaker of Power Line has an article in The Daily Standard that echoes some of my sentiments:
... there is no Constitutional requirement that Supreme Court justices be lawyers. It might well be good to have a non-lawyer or two on the Court. Such justices may not bring much value to issues of, say, bankruptcy law; but the Constitution is a straightforward document, intended to be read and understood by men and women of ordinary intelligence and experience. There is no reason why expositing that document should be solely the province of lawyers.
Harvard law professor Charles Fried also had an interesting article on the same subject in yesterday's Boston Globe.
But perhaps most interesting of all, at least from the point of view of taking Will to task, is this piece by Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards Blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment