APPOINT AN MD AND SCIENTIST TO THE SUPREME COURT

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has handed down many Sports, Recreation and Exercise (SRE) decisions. SRE athlete participation, numbers of games, TV broadcasts and so forth have exploded and dominate society. Meanwhile, while difficult to believe, there are NO Requirements for a person who can be appointed justice to the Supreme Court, even though SCOTUS decisions are crucial to SRE and every phase of life in the U.S.

Because of new developments in other disciplines, unfamiliar to attorneys, that affect U.Ss citizens, the US Supreme Court should have an MD and scientist/physicist justice. The number of justices has no set limit or number for appointment. The Roman Catholic Church religion, for example, is on the cutting edge by selecting former scientist, Pope Francis, who has a masters degree in chemistry, anticipating increasing interaction of advances in science with life considered with his leadership decisions.

“When the United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, the concept of health care was very different than it is today.

“Yet at the time of the Constitution’s writing, it was understood that the health of an individual and a family was chiefly the responsibility of the individual and the family. As such, the only mention in the text of the Constitution that could be construed as referring even vaguely to health care is the so-called “general welfare” clause in the Preamble.

“The general welfare phrase does not change the fact that our nation’s government is based on delegated powers, and the Constitution specifically spells out which powers are delegated. The Constitution is clear about the matter: the people of the United States have the right to set their own health care priorities, to pay for what they choose to pay for, to direct the paths of their own lives, and to live with the consequences of the path they take—without interference from the nation’s central government.” [Benjamin Domenech, Health Care News]

But since our government has moved beyond the original Constitutional intention, nowadays, and since we have learned the earth is not flat and medicine and science knowledge have exploded and difficult to grasp resulting in multiple medical and science sub-specialties, asking lawyers to decide questions about prescription medicines, abortion, outpatient surgery regulations, scope of medical practice, medical negligence, legal and medical marijuana, and many others too numerous to mention, and science i.e. global warming, etc., medicine and science are well beyond the scope of the routine practice of law now on the supreme court.

MDs and scientist/physicists are eligible. In fact, there are many MDs and scientists, who are attorneys. Now we have legal and forensic medicine specialties. They too are eligible.

Consider the 2016 Federal Budget from the most to the least funded categories:
1st = 28% health, which will double by 2024,
2nd = 21% National Defense,
Government = 1%.

It appears that SC justices need exceptional knowledge, nowadays.

Recently, an attorney, who passed his bar, educated at very prestigious undergraduate and law schools, when I asked, he said, “I don’t know a thing about science.”

“The Constitution spells out age, citizenship and residency requirements for becoming president of the United States or a member of Congress but mentions no rules for joining the nation’s highest court. To date, six justices have been foreign born; the most recent, Felix Frankfurter, who served on the court from 1939 to 1962, was a native of Vienna, Austria. The youngest associate justice ever appointed was Joseph Story, who was 32 years old when he joined the bench in 1811. Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who served from 1902 to 1932, retired at age 90, making him the oldest person ever to sit on the court. One thing every justice who’s served shares in common is that all were lawyers prior to joining the court.

“During the 18th and 19th centuries, before attending law school was standard practice, many future justices got their legal training by studying under a mentor. James Byrnes, who served on the court from 1941 to 1942, was the last justice who didn’t attend law school (Byrnes, who also didn’t graduate from high school, worked as a law clerk and later passed the bar exam.) Harvard has produced more members of the court than any other law school; to date, 20 justices have attended or graduated from the venerable institution, which was established in 1817 and is America’s oldest continually operating law school. [7 Things You Might Not Know About the U.S. Supreme Court Oct. 8, 2013 By Elizabeth Nix]

So a supreme court justice has no age, native birth, attorney or any other schooling or any other specific requirement. The only requirement is appointment by the President of the U.S. followed by approval by the U.S. Senate.

The following are good reasons for the appointment of an M.D. and/or Scientist on the Supreme Court.

“Medical and legal realities differ dramatically in their approach to probability and uncertainty.

“Scientific experiments rely on data proven to very high levels of certainty, beyond reasonable doubt to the p<0.01 to establish probabilistic findings

“Courts in contrast use a preponderance of evidence, just more likely than not at the 51% level to establish yes or no judgements about guilt or innocence.

“Law students have relied on case method for their training, judicial opinions handed down by state and federal courts of appeal. What Dr Andrew Watson describes a ‘logical and philosophical discussions at least thrice (3X) removed from the events described.’ Law students’ probability relies on logic and philosophy to the nearest 51%, not certainty of p<0.01 in science.

“Whereas, Medical students are trained to be emotionally, sociologically and professionally one with the patient. The patient and his medical conditions are his chief concern.” With close physical contact probing the most intimate aspects of the patents personal life.

“Medical and legal realities differ dramatically in their approach to probability and uncertainty.”
[Ethical Practice in Psychiatry and the Law by Richard Rosner, Robert Weinstock, Springer Science & Business Media, Nov 11, 2013 – Psychology – 348 pages]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *