"Driven by Political Goals" and therein lies the problem. Those in the Legal sphere seem to read the laws with one eye open. Be it the Left or Right eye it is hard for "We the People" to understand just what written law they are reading. Our laws are written and passed or Enacted by those legal minds that came before them yet all seem to be open to interpretation at any time. You need only go to both our Constitution and the Bill of Rights to see the constant and continual attacks being portrayed against them.

There have been a surprising number of unanimous decisions lately, but because those aren't driven by political goals, they rarely get much attention by the media.

Thank you, gharkness.

I'm in Brevard frequently, but now I'm west Orange.

I would say pretty.

Thank you.

None taken. I legitimately only wanted to invoke the small government vision of what I feel proper government should be. It is by no means something I wanted to do as a career. Although given who's running the show, it make take a lifetime to change it.

YUP! Too bad we can't get 2 lawyers being paid by opposite sides or leaning in one direction or the other to ever agree on anything!
Point in fact; Supreme court rulings are very often made in 5-4 decisions telling us that 4 interpret the law one way and 5 the other way.

The American system of government was intended to be one that operated under the "rule of law." In other words, every action had to be legally correct and binding, in accordance with a set of laws agreed upon by the citizens of the nation. The result of that determination, created in an effort to prevent the often arbitrary actions of a monarch or dictator, was to encourage those with the most legal education to enter politics. It motivated people (rightly or wrongly) to assume that a lawyer would be best at supporting their needs within proper legal bounds.

Are you still in Brevard, Frank? If so, maybe we could get together for either dinner or a weekend meal.

Q - You know how to tell an extroverted engineer? A - They are looking at YOUR shoes when they talk to you.

go to "make American free again" website...Pam Popper of Forks over Knives has filed a 700 page legal brief against the governor of Ohio....listen to her 20 minute from today on the details...

I started as a JFK Dam., switched to Reublican during Reagan. Worked in the Congressional office of a Congressman. Found both parties full of lypocracsy. I saw what the Greek stateman meant when he said, Politics is the grandest form of slavery." You are either crooked like Pelosi, and don't care. If you do care, you are equally answerable to all constituents all the time. speak out, write the newspaper, blog, attend meetings, but I will never be a joiner to get elected to an office which is the worst way to cause change. Local politics is about following he money, you can only unmask it, and take cover.I have received anonomous information many times, from someone afraid to use it themelves. I have had my house staked our, but the wimp drove off when I took my dog and hunting gun on a Tour of the yard. in search of varmits near my driveway.. A friend who was protesting was told if he did not shut up, they would ruin his business, and they tried, meanwhile he backed off somewhat. Politics at all levels is a dirty game, just be ready to counter the oconsequences.

You sure lost me on this comment! Do we have some "Introverted Engineers" here?

Maybe, and perhaps maybe engineers don't "follow the money" because they are more often introverted and/or poorer communicators.

IMO, "Follow the Money" !!

Me dino been Trumped on that too.

There is a statistically relevant population of lawyers in politics. I don't know why either.

No Offence toward you or anyone else but I am very skeptical about Attorneys who decide to become Politicians. I guess the question is, How is that working out for us?
I am partial to those who were successful in business who turn to Politics.

Hey, welcome back. I am a "newbie" relatively speaking, since I don't recall seeing you here before.

Glad you're home.

How prevalent is this case in law school teaching?
Am I accurate in identifying this case, regarding no interperative constitutional preamble, as a root cause for this country's divisiveness?
My only litigatory background is from having to file suit on a former customer in the realm of intellectual property. After reading this I can understand why the judge allowed all the obfuscation from my opponent's lawyer.

The classic case on preemption.

Cool. Welcome back!

Welcome back. Politics is the ambiguity of argument over Mob Rule. Just this morning I briefed myself on Lochner v. New York. (Oliver Wendell Holmes dissent 1905) Pretty pertinent to today's arguments.
Here is an interesting insight: https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/govern...