That is a basic theme of the critical legal studies school of jurisprudence theory.
Please accept this in the helpful spirit in which it is offered. No ball-busting intended.
men·dac·i·ty P Pronunciation Key (mn-ds-t)
n. pl. men·dac·i·ties
The condition of being mendacious; untruthfulness.
A lie; a falsehood.
As in, “a powerful odor of.” Which I definitely whiff off of Scalia and Thomas.
Forget it John. You’re fighting the almost burning need that many liberals have to feel persecuted-an obsession that they seem to share, interestingly enough, with the religious right. There is always a “they” who is out to get them. An “overclass” who is ensuring that things aren’t fair. A “man” who is keeping them down. It’s the politics of victim-hood, and it’s planted deep, deep root in this country’s psyche. It’ll likely be what finally brings the USA to it’s knees. Witness Cynthia McKenney, a successful, multi-term congresswoman who finally lost last week. (and the fact that she is the daughter of a cop turned legislator and a nurse who got to the US Congress for over a decade is the perfect refutation of the “overclass” theory) Was the loss her fault? Did the voters finally wake up to the fact that she’s a bit of a wacko and react accordingly? Can she just understand that she had a nice run, but that it was over now, time for someone else to take her seat in accordance with the normal workings of the Republic? Nope. According to her staff, her loss was all the fault of the Jews and other “Zionists”(along with the “crackers” I believe, they weren’t real clear with their invective). If it wasn’t the Jews, then it was the voting machines. And so on and so fourth. Personal responsibility is a dying concept in this country anymore, and you might as well attempt to teach a pig to sing as to suggest that some things just are, or that an individual’s own effort and abilities are going to have a much greater bearing on where they end up than where they were born or who their friends are(not that those things don’t help-they do, sometimes a lot. But not to the point of excluding anyone not originally of their “class” from their own success).
The Supreme Court should consist of: one left and one right Inside Grouch, one left and one right Outside Grouch, four Deep Brooders, four Shallow Brooders, five Wicket Men, three Offensive Niblings, four Quarter-Frummerts, two Half-Frummerts, one Full-Frummert, two Overblats, two Underblats, nine Back-Up Finks, two Leapers and a Dummy - for a total of 43.
Kudos for the fellow who provides the original source. 
Mad Magazine!!
Ok, Ok… :d
It may sound archaic, but the framers of the written constitution used for the U.S. of America didn’t intend or at least envision congress members to be anything other than a part time job. You were supposed to have a “real” job, and travel once a year or so and spend time at Washington to do the “people’s business” and go home to harvest the crops or whatever. Certainly people should be aware of that and take that into consideration when they think about the role of elected representatives and how they should serve us. In other words, that’s not how (most?) politicians operate today but that was the standard.
Nor did they envision them as being drawn from any class but the elite.
I’m not sure if you’re trying to say that this should still be the norm, but if you are… why? Times change, and even if [some of the] framers thought this, they didn’t actually make it a requirement explicitly in the constitution. As much as I’m a big fan of small government, those halcyon days of part time legislators are gone forever.
Yeah, as long as they were land-owning White males. Honestly, do you think we have a less representative bunch in Congress now than we had in 1800? If so, on what facts do you base that opinion?
My point was that we needn’t feel bound by what the Framers “envisioned.” But come to think of it, how many congresscritters are not rich? How many are not white? I think Obama’s the only black in the Senate. How many are not male?
Agreed, except where that vision is made explicit in the constitution of course.
The Senate was supposed to be an elite institution, so that’s not where I’d go hunting for a broad spectrum of people… Look at that House if you want to see diversity.
I swear, I’m not trying to start anything, but… What in the world makes you think that “elite” means “rich, white, and male”? When I read that, my mouth fell open. I’m glad the House has more diversity, but the Senate needs it too. They are supposed to represent the people! They should be elite as far as their intelligence goes, but skin color, gender, and wealth have nothing to do with it.
How many countries use a written constitution? We’re certainly bound by that, at least in theory. “A more perfect union” - the declaration was the ideal, and the constitution the realization. I suspect though, that you’re referring to the framers outside writings and musings, apart from the legislative and judicial stuff that makes up the nuts and bolts of the government.
Yet another reason to abolish it.
You’re right. I was going for more something along the lines of 'secretly gives members of his clan/group/class all the breaks while finding various pretexts for doing so." There’s an element of untruthfulness there, but mendacity doesn’t really cover it.
Hate to get off the hijack, but think about it:
Scalia: old, white, male, Catholic, paleo-conservative - R
Thomas: old, black, male, Catholic, paleo-conservative - R
Alito: middle aged, white, male Catholic, conservative - R
Roberts: middle aged, white, male, Catholic, conservative - R
Kennedy: old, white, male, Catholic, moderate - R
Souter: old, white, male, Protestant, moderate - R
Stevens: old, white, male, Protestant, moderate - R
Ginsburg: old, white, female, Protestant, moderate - D
Breyer: old, white, male, Protestant, moderate - D
Jeebus, folks, anybody see a pattern there? I’m OK with “old” or 'middle aged" but Jeebus, the way the Pubbies are going, the Supreme Court is gonna be nine old white male Catholic conservatives if they stay in power. I don’t think the Court should be appointed strictly along demographic lines, but really, do ya think people aren’t going to notice how very … limited … the pool from which Supreme Court members are selected?
I think people of all walks of life should be able to become one. You know, a regular workingman/woman. Of course they would have to be highly intelligent and schooled a bit before taking their seat. But I think they should know about the “real world” a bit, as opposed to someone who had their way paved for them by rich parents and a golden spoon in their mouths coming up. I’m sure it’s not that way for some, but let’s face it, most were already well to do before becoming lawyers, let alone Supreme Court Justices.
Really? All the Ginsburgs I’ve met have been either Quakers or Mormons.