<p>
[quote]
You’ve said that there are too many lawyers in the U.S. Why do you think that?
I don’t mean to criticize lawyers, just the need for so many lawyers. Lawyers don’t dig ditches or build buildings. When a society requires such a large number of its best minds to conduct the unproductive enterprise of the law, something is wrong with the legal system.
<p>He's right, there are too many lawyers in the U.S. Many of us lawyers also feel that the country would be much better off minus one particular Supreme Court Justice . . .</p>
<p>"Is there a role for politics in our judicial system?
None whatever. The absolute worst violation of the judge’s oath is to decide a case based on a partisan political or philosophical basis, rather than what the law requires."</p>
<p>I didn't come close to choking. This stated idea is absolutely nothing new for Justice Scalia, and he is and has always been quite public about his beliefs.</p>
<p>I'm no expert in Supreme Court jurisprudence, but I believe that what Scalia is getting at is that he is not in favor of judges and courts stepping into the shoes of legislators. He believes that judges should never legislate new laws and rules from the bench (in other words, he would be against an "activist" court). Scalia has also been a proponent of "original meaning," or reading and interpreting our Constitution by asking what a reasonable person living at the same time as when the Constitution was drafted and ratified would have understood the laws to mean -- nothing more and nothing less. It is the text of a law that matters, and not the intention of the drafter (thus, for example, he has always had a tough time with the "penumbra" of rights that form the basis of our privacy laws -- if the framers of the Constitution had meant for privacy to be a right, the Constitution would explicitly say so). For those other lawyers who frequent this blog, he has basically a "four corners" approach to the Constitution. </p>
<p>Accordingly, Scalia has consistently objected when rights are "read into" the Constitution, and he also absolutely rejects reviewing the legislative history of a law as a tool to be used to understand the meaning of that law.</p>
<p>Again, I'm hardly an expert, but Justice Scalia's quote by reddune is pretty much in keeping with his very consistently held philosophy on judging.</p>
<p>Could we disbar some of the ones that work in DC then?</p>
<p>Last I looked, you have to be a lawyer before you can be a judge. And not everyone who doesn't dig ditches or build buildings is "useless" to the economy. We have machines that do that now. If anything people who DO dig ditches and build buildings are useless. :D</p>
<p>In the U.S., as of 2004, we had approximately 3.77 lawyers for every 1,000 people and approximately 2.2 doctors for every 1,000 people. Though laws, regulations and enforcement fo those laws and regulations has become increasingly complex and people have become increasingly litigious, that seems like a whole lot of lawyers. That said, if there wasn't demand, you would have to assume that some of the lawyers would stop practicing. </p>
<p>Perhaps the answer is to make the laws and the manner in which those laws are enforced, publically and privately, simpler.</p>
<p>I think you can make a strong argument that lawyers are essential for a well-managed and efficient economy. For example, much of American commerce depends on the assumption that promises made in contracts are kept. The reason this assumption exists is because there are so many lawyers ready to sue to make sure those promises are kept. On the other hand, if there are too many lawyers with too little to do, the result is endless litigation that can unnecessarily raise the cost of doing business. In short, having lawyers is essential to prosperity but having too many lawyers can stifle prosperity. It's a balancing test.</p>
<p>I'm applying to law school for next year and totally disregarding the mantra by which I've lived the rest of my life: "What Would Justice Scalia Do??"</p>