Not too sure us 'Mericans should be pointing and laughing at the UK's system so much given all the archaic quirks of how presidents get picked.

And my post applies to all sorts of other issues as well. Become a U.S. Attorney? Definitely going to eventually convict an innocent person, or try to, or convict someone of a crime you believe should not be a crime. Become a public defender? Definitely defending guilty people. Become an assistant city attorney? Definitely going to enforce eminent domain against someone's home, or deny benefits you want to approve, etc.

It is very hard to think of a representative role as a lawyer where you will 100% buy in in every instance. The job is to set that aside, advocate, and deal with your moral turmoil on your own time, without it compromising your work or your clients' rights.

Or you simply quit or choose not to, in this example, clerk for Scalia.

Also, even that is complex. He did GOOD work, sometimes, regarding rights of criminal defendants. I believe he WROTE the case banning thermal imaging within homes. The point is there are going to be issues you're in lockstep on anyway, and the opportunity to learn from that experience outweighs any qualms. Just taking on the role WOULD make you a better lawyer, and enable you to advocate more effectively in the future anyway.

I could do it, maybe I'm not a great person, but I could do it.

Test for any job.

If i do my job better, will that make the world a worse, better or unchanged place?

Defence lawyer, absolutely a better place because the right to a defence lawyer >>>>>>>> getting a guilty guy to go free.

Clerking for scalia... i dont see it.

@Hoya

Is it a violation of your own ethics or intellectual discord to support in any way someone who, say, wants to repeal the civil rights act?

-1, you guys are all just pissing into the wind

Low Key's position is AIDS, but the responses are well-put and interesting.

Being asked to violate the ethical precepts of a profession is far different than being asked to advocate for a position that you do not share.

Though I disagree with him on a great many things, I would have clerked for Scalia. But as an accountant, I would never look the other way at misstatement of financial results. To lawyers, at least, those are two very different things.

Also, there was no rule that prevented clerks from clearing their consciences by trying to change Scalia's mind. He was quite well-known for hiring liberal clerks. I'm not sure if he hired one every term, and I'm sure he mostly used them as cannon fodder, but whatever.

The premise of the very question, would you clerk for Scalia, shows a total misunderstanding of the US system and the genius of the founders. The bedrock principal is vigorous debate of all views and the "best" (defined as most persuasive) one winning.

Would the liberals itt prefer a liberal monarchy where conservative ideas are never discussed? If so, that's not a democracy.

Scalia was wrong on nearly everything, in my opinion, but the system demands intelligent people on all sides fighting for their ideas.

Oh man that noodle guy is low key? That makes sense.

Clovis is right. If you believe in democracy, you are obligated to make copies for that fat ****.

His position isn't "AIDS." It's a difficult question to grapple with because I of course think repealing the Civil Rights Act is abominable. But could I advocate for it? Yes.

WOULD I take that case if it walked into my office? No.

WOULD I do it if it came up while I was clerking for a high court or employed by a government agency? Yes. Either side. That's the job.

You will say that clerking for Scalia is to, in effect, take the case. I will disagree.

Lol at the ageism.

But, if justices are really so politically oriented, maybe something should change either in their term or how they are selected.

Are American voters that stupid that they believe the crap out of Cruz's mouth?

Let see if Obama picks the new Judge they will get rid of the 2 nd amendment and will be aborting babies a day before they are born.

Love Mitch honor the unwritten rule that a outgoing president doesn't appoint judges in the last 6 months. This from the same man that stood up in the house and said the exact opposite when the Democrats brought up the unwritten rule .

I get why rich Americans vote republican the rest baffle me . Not that the democrats are the greatest party on earth

ianal, but i'd snap-take a clerkship for scalia, even though i hated him as much as i hate any other human being, with the exception of cruz.

EVERYONE is politically oriented. people are going to fall on the more liberal or conservative side of the spectrum. we aren't borgs. as a result, you are going to have interpretations of the law that will be seen as "liberal" or "conservative".

Lol last six months. That would be ridiculous enough, but Obama has 11 months left in his term.

I don't see thier political leanings a de facto bad as long as there is a balance and an openness to be persuaded. Pretending there is such as thing as pure objectivity is foolhearty in the judiciary, journalism or really any facet of life (not that you were. I am just editoralizing).

I def don't mean anyone is pure, but it seems pretty far on the partisan side with all this litmus testing.

But the chances of them actually lighting up the bulb above low key's head are less than zero

lol at anyone thinking there's some big gotcha here, of course republicans are just spewing hypocrisy here. You play to win the game. They're really behind the eightball here but you might as well throw the hail mary. worst case is obama gets his pick confirmed and they're no worse off than if they had just rolled over.

He ordered the doctors to STAND DOWN.

I'm surprised Obama didn't just take a DNA sample then bury the old ****er at sea.

We don't let 80 year olds do basically anything. Maybe greet people at Walmart but that's about it. Call it whatever you want but it's the truth. Once you get that old and older, you simply become less able.

lol just read the transcript where Scalia said that Jews not thinking a cross was the universal symbol for war dead and therefore not thinking it honored them was outrageous.

It's official in that the official spokesmen for the Queen and the Prince of Wales have said it on the record. The veto seems to mean mostly that the bill gets redrafted. The 1999 private member's bill on Iraq, which had to be run past HM because it related to warmaking powers, was obviously something the government didn't want and, given the size of the government's majority, it didn't stand an earthly of becoming law anyway.

It is really a consultation process which we already knew about but not in such detail. Various lobby groups and business interests probably exert more influence than the royals do, and even less transparently.