Miscellaneous desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 21

Civil war

With all the polarization and rising tension in the USA, is a civil war or bloody revolution inevitable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.74.242 (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Marco polo (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is inevitable. Even the original Civil War wasn't "inevitable." The US has been through plenty of polarization and "rising tension" in the past without it resorting to anything organized. (What is going on today pales in comparison to what was going on over segregation and civil rights in the 1960s. Remember that people were being regularly lynched then and they had to send in the national guard and etc. to enforce even the most basic peace. We aren't anywhere near that. Don't believe the hype.) My guess is certainly no civil war, and certainly no "bloody revolution." Violent nuts like Timothy McVeigh or the Weather Underground seem more likely. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several Oklahoma state legislators are proposing a state militia to fight attempts by the federal government to enforce federal laws. Woogee (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, watch out for heavily armed gun control advocates. Googlemeister (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State legislators say a lot of junk. None of it comes to pass. For all of their grandstanding, Oklahoma receives billions of federal aid each year. This is not the stuff of civil wars. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's thought that revoking the Fairness Doctrine (the law that required US broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing opinions) in 1985 has led to polarization of the US electorate. Prior to that, voters heard both sides of any issue. Now the conservatives listen to conservative TV and radio, which demonizes liberals, and vice-versa. If this is the case, then reinstating the Fairness Doctrine should help to heal the nation. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought is that there may actually be room for a centrist political party in the US, as neither the liberal "tax and spend" values or the new conservative value of "don't tax, but still spend (on wars, Social Security, Medicare, etc.)" reflect the majority view. Neither party seems interested in regulating Wall Street properly, either. A centrist party could also bring the other two parties back toward the center, and hopefully bring the more extreme elements of the electorate with them. StuRat (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would be a good idea to bring the Democratic Party toward the center from its current center-right orientation. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When StuRat says "centrist", he means relative to US politics, ie. between the Republicans and Democrats. The fact that both parties are well to the right of European politics is irrelevant to his point. --Tango (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least, I think he does. On a second reading, I'm less sure. StuRat, can you clarify? --Tango (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right, Tango. StuRat (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McCain was seen by many as being a centrist, and he got savaged by both parties, so there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They ought to move towards the centre anyway, by Duverger's law, although the law is far from perfect (as the UK is demonstrating very well as I type). If there is a gap between the parties then either party can get more votes by moving into that gap (they would only lose votes if there is an extreme party that they are moving away from, but in US federal elections, third parties are almost completely irrelevant, so they wouldn't lose many votes to one). I think the reason there seems to be a gap between the parties is that each party is actually quite spread out. There is a big gap between Obama and the Republicans, but that is because Obama is on the left-hand side of the Democrats. The right-hand side of the Democrats is very close to the left-hand side of the Republicans (arguably, there is even an overlap). (The usual disclaimers about the limitations of a one-dimensional political model apply to all the foregoing.) --Tango (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither party seems committed to reducing the deficit, regulating Wall Street, applying price controls to medicine, etc. Instead they argue over trivialities, like whether your $20 aspirin is paid for by insurance or taxpayers, rather than why it costs $20 in the first place. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The polarization is fueled by various media taking Point-Counterpoit stances on everything, which may be bad for America but it's good for ratings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If each media outlet covered both the point and counter-point, that would be fine. It's when each only covers one side that the issue occurs. Thus, we're back to my argument to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Price controls aren't necessary to bring down medicine prices. Britain doesn't have price controls, it keeps prices low by the NHS being a near-monopsony. Governments running large deficits is a risk with democracies: voters like low taxes and high spending and don't really understand the risks of large deficits. --Tango (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that solution would be unacceptable to US voters, while medical price controls might fly with them, since the immediate benefits are readily apparent. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Price controls often trigger shortages. Meanwhile, the Fairness Doctrine is said to be a violation of the First Amendment. Arguably, any governmental control of public media is a violation of the First Amendment, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a risk of shortages, yes. At the moment, I think the US is subsidising the world's pharmaceutical research and development, so I'm not sure what would happened if prices did come down in the US. Prices would probably have to go up a bit elsewhere. --Tango (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Price controls are manifestly against the free market, which Americans are usually very keen on, so I wouldn't expect it to be very popular. --Tango (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With price controls, you do need to be careful not to set prices so low that nobody can make a profit, but there's a huge range between the current prices charged and the minimum required for profitability, especially once price-structures are reduced.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, it wasn't found by the Supreme Court to be a violation of the First Amendment, and the US government has a long history of controlling broadcasts over the air waves, so that's not really an issue. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but even so the Free Speech complaint is what killed it. Meanwhile, I recall when that bastion of liberalism and socialism, Richard Nixon, imposed gasoline price controls in the early 70s, leading to shortages of gas and long lines at the stations. You can argue that the gas companies cut production as a "protest", but nonetheless there were shortages. And Tango is right, the drug companies charge high prices in the USA partly as a way of balancing lower prices elsewhere. If you lower prices substantially in the US also, with no compensatory price increase elsewhere, something's got to give, and it would probably be reflected in cutbacks in drug research and development. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "free speech" argument, which wouldn't hold up in court, was used as an excuse by those who wanted to kill it for other reasons, since "we are opposed to fairness" doesn't go over very well. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the conservatives felt like the media (as well as the High Court) was largely controlled by liberals, and that this would give them a chance to level the playing field a bit. Why the courts ever upheld the right of the federal government to regulate broadcast media is a mystery, as they are basically saying that regulation of interstate commerce overrides the first amendment, which is a dangerous concept in a country that likes to think of itself as "free". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason is that you can't possibly allow anyone to broadcast anything, without regulation, as the air waves can only support a limited number of stations. Thus the need for an FCC to regulate broadcasters. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a reasonable argument for regulating the frequencies. The slippery slope is in also trying to regulate the content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Well, if you only have a small number of stations, you also want to ensure that they provide content suitable for all, unlike the Internet, where there's enough sites that it doesn't matter if any one provides useless content, since there are plenty of others. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for medical price controls, there's more wiggle room than in other areas, since a lack of competition has allowed prices to skyrocket (after all, who is going to buy an artificial heart from "Bob's Discount Hearts" ?). Thus, when Japan instituted medical price controls, they were able to keep prices down, without causing severe shortages. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you have in the drug industry is what we called "monopolistic competition" in Econ 101. The problem with a place like "Bob's Discount Hearts" would be, where did they get them from? Did they develop them themselves? And if so, what with? It takes a lot of money to develop these things. That tends to isolate development into a few large firms. How did they handle it in Japan? Did they cut into the company's profits? And if so, isn't there a smaller amount left over for R&D? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Profit margins are reduced, yes, but more basically there are ways to do things which cost far less, but they currently have little incentive to cut costs, due to a lack of competition. It's similar to the thousand dollar toilet seats bought by NASA. If they needed to, due to budget constraints, they could have bought one at a hardware store for $20. But, if you give them an unlimited budget, the price will inevitably skyrocket. As for R&D, there are cheaper ways to do that, too, like having competitors work together, and using graduate students at colleges to do much of the work. In Japan's case, they were able to bring the costs of MRIs way down by sharing machines and by developing much smaller machines. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheaper labor? I'm not so sure I like that idea. I want my drugs developed by people that are well-paid and happy. And companies do have joint ventures in the U.S. but they have to be careful, lest they be accused of forming a trust. P.S. I recommend bookmarking this friendly debate, to present the next time some idiot drive-by accuses the two of us of being just one guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the drugs companies are making massive profits they will still want to make even bigger profits, so there is always an incentive to do things the cheapest way they can without reducing sales. --Tango (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true in a normal business, but not when under the threat of regulatory action. If they developed a drug for $100 million, and sold it for $200 million, the would-be regulators might grumble. But, if they developed it for $10 million, and sold it for $200 million, the regulators would call for action against them for gouging customers. Also, having a company with ten times the R&D budget, tens times the number of employees, etc., makes the CEO's demand for an outrageous salary seem more reasonable. Then there's the principle that a company simply can't cut costs until their survival depends on it. Cost-cutting is just too low of a priority, compared with other concerns, prior to that. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What regulatory action? We're discussing imposing price controls because there aren't any now. Incidentally, selling a drug for 20 times the development costs is fairly typical since you have to cover the development costs of the 19 drugs that never made it to market. --Tango (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The $10 or $100 million to develop a drug, in my example, includes the cost of other failed drugs. And, to convince the public that prices shouldn't be controlled, they need to be able to show that they blow a lot of money on R&D. So, improving their cost efficiency wouldn't be good business. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purely on a point of information, StuRat and Tango, your example may be misleading. When I started a job at a (US-owned) pharmaceuticals manufacturing, etc, site 10½ years ago, I was told that the total cost (in 1999) of getting one 'candidate molecule' from identification successfully to market (a 5 to 10 year process) averaged around $500 million, and the costs of the other candidates that failed along the way (which its revenues also had to cover) averaged in total around $400 million, making around $900 million that it had to earn back before the company made any profit to plough into further R&D, etc. Current figures will obviously be somewhat higher. Regulatory requirements cause of good deal of these very high figures. Price regulation varies greatly from country to country, but a limiting factor is that nearly all drugs have competitors marketed by their rivals in the same markets so the usual effects of competition apply. (Cross-company price fixing cartels are illegal almost everywhere, and are jumped on very heavily.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual numbers aren't particular relevant to my point, although spending $900 million then, and likely over a billion now, certainly suggests that there's a lot of room to cut costs, if the incentives were there to do so. And prices don't seem to drop dramatically as long as a drug remains under patent protection, but plummets once generic equivalents are allowed. This suggests that drug companies do engage in price fixing. It's probably not men in a room coming to a secret agreement, but just companies each being unwilling to lower the price first. This type of price fixing can only happen with a small number of "competitors" and is impossible to stop. StuRat (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer no. Long answer: there's nothing seriously worth fighting over. Vranak (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge rift between the Conservatives and Liberals of the US, and their preceptions on public policy. To avoid conflict there would need to be communication and more understanding. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is insurance for if they avoid covering you when it goes wrong?

With the news that the restrictions on air travel in Europe are being lifted, I read that some people are finding their travel insurance doesn't cover them for their extended hotel stays and expensive alternative travel arrangements home. Some companies claim that "acts of god" are not covered by their policy. But surely, isn't this just the kind of thing that people would reasonably expect their travel insurance to cover? Is the failure to cover "acts of god" a common feature of insurance policies in general? Astronaut (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make a profit for insurance companies, and yes. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is 'it depends on your policy'. Travel insurance may cover 'trip cacellation', 'trip interruption', 'missed connections', and/or 'travel delay', which are all subtly different. Some will cover trip cancellations/interruptions primarily for medical reasons (you, a travelling companion, or a close relative becomes ill, is injured, or dies), for example, but not for other purposes. Other policies offer broader coverage. (In general, more coverage costs more money.) If you go to Google News and query "travel insurance" "Acts of God" then you'll find a lot of recent articles on this topic. (Here are a few: [1], [2], [3].) Ultimately, the answer is 'Read your policy and ask any questions about coverage before you go.' TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of "acts of war" and "acts of God" exclusions in insurance policies is to avoid bankrupting the insurer due to extraodinarily high claim volume when a calamity occurs. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance is a transfer of risk. The cost of the insurance premiums depends on the amount of risk transferred. If you want the insurance company to take on the risk of natural disasters, you would have to pay greater premiums (particularly because, as The Hero says, natural disasters result in lots of people claiming at once, which means the general principle of insurance, ie. if you sell enough insurance policies all the unpredicatableness will average out and you will have a reliable business model, doesn't apply). --Tango (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other ways around that problem, though. One is to sell policies over a wide range of geographic areas. The other is for the insurance company to purchase reinsurance, which may come from larger companies or governments which can cover the disaster. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why national insurers have survived disasters like hurricanes, albeit with a gash in their reserve, while local insurers have gone bust in those circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of a local insurer going bust in such circumstances? Usually they have reinsurance with national companies. --Tango (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking specifically of whatever hurricane it was that destroyed Homestead, Florida a couple of decades or so back. I'll see what I can find. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Andrew. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selling policies over a wide geographic range doesn't help with global disruption like we've seen here (while the flight ban was only over part of Europe, the knock-on effects are global). The reinsurance companies are in the same position as the insurance companies, since all the insurance companies will be in trouble at once. Governments compensating people is an option, since governments aren't expected to make a profit on every deal. --Tango (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current disruption comes close to a level which would bankrupt worldwide reinsurers. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think you're on the mark with that. This is mostly a loss of convenience, not the destruction of one's homes. That doesn't mean the insured should be happy about it, though, and I expect some of the affected persons will switch companies as a result. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Act of God clauses talk about types of losses, not the sizes of them. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but any large-scale disaster will be classified as an act of God, this protecting insurers. StuRat (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

A lot of insurance doesn't cover Acts of God
Yes, insurance companies are interested in profit (i.e. living) and don't want to give many pay-outs
If the Iceland eruption isn't an Act of God, I don't know what is.

Vranak (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a conspiracy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's unilateral action by Iceland to get their own back on the rest of Europe for demanding that Iceland refund it for reimbursing depositors in Icelandic banks. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's solely a result of global warming/climate change/CFCs/acid rain/decreasing morality among our children.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"When the time comes," said Iceland, "please scatter my ashes over Europe." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has there ever been a court case where the insurance company was asked to prove the existence of God in order to determine if a natural disaster actually was an act of God? Googlemeister (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See The Man Who Sued God; although I didn't. As for the volcano, it wasn't global warming or morality; it was Top Gear. Obviously. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot of strange court cases, so quite possibly. It wouldn't have gone far, though. It's just a term of art, it isn't supposed to be interpreted literally. --Tango (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you travel as a group with a group-ticket and arrangement, then all is covered!

2. Yes, they are all after profit. Did you view: "Mister Incredible"?

3. The Islandic eruption was not an Act of God, I think, but caused by under-sea plates moving apart and allowing magma to come to the surface.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Item 3 is, by definition, an act of God, if you take God to equate to Nature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mac, The phrase "Act of God" has a defined legal meaning. It does not necessarily mean that the volcano was specifically caused by a a man in a white robe who invented the universe. (You might as well argue that "Prairie Dogs" are not dogs. True, but that doesn't change what they're called.)APL (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where does this leave those individuals who might reasonably expect their insurance to cover the highly unlikely and unexpected events during their travels? The UK's Foreign Office regularly runs adverts reminding the more independently minded tourist to take travel insurance, citing all kinds of situations you might find yourself in through no fault of your own; then it seems the insurance company is only too ready to ditch you under the "Act of God" clause buried in the small print. Astronaut (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't automatically expect my insurance to pay for something like that: "Acts of God" exceptions are quite common, and I would think that a person could reasonably be expected to know that. Although I never really got the point of travel insurance that covers delays or lost bags anyways. Is it really worth paying for a policy that's only going to cover $2,500 or so tops, and in most cases will probably be a couple hundred bucks for a couple nights in a hotel? It seems like nearly everyone would be better off "Insuring themselves" and pocketing what would have gone towards the insurance company's profits. Buddy431 (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you buy insurance you should read the fine print—it's not like reading the fine print in the documents that come with a physical object, the fine print is all you get for your money. Yes, Buddy, most people would be better off not buying travel insurance. That's how insurance works. If people typically got more return from their insurance than they paid in, then the insurance companies wouldn't make any money. On the other hand, most travellers can afford a hundred dollars in insurance premiums, but not all could afford thousands of dollars in hospital bills if they go and break their leg in a foreign country. FiggyBee (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly understand insurance for medical care, as that has the potential to run into the thousands of dollars. Getting stranded a couple days (by an "Act of God" or otherwise) usually doesn't. I'm saying that for most people, it's probably better to eat the costs of shelling out for an extra night in a hotel once in a while than buy a more expensive travel insurance policy that would cover that sort of thing. Buddy431 (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer; go as a group, and bring God, and lots of money! (Should we put God on trial, to ask a few questions with the emphesis on "why?"). (Maybe we should ask Him to be Pilot, and we take a back seat).

MacOfJesus (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, is insurance worth it, you ask. Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages of all insurance types:

Advantages:

A) It can spread the risk, and thus cover costs that no single member could bear. Having "predictable risks" is particularly important in business.

B) It may be required by law (not so much an advantage, but it is a reason to get it).

Disadvantages:

1) Profit margins. Since the insurance company wants to make a profit, they will charge more for the premiums than they pay out, on average. This means the insured will lose money, on average. Exceptions exist for government subsidized insurance (such as for those who build their houses in foolish places) or if you somehow know you're a worse risk than the insurance company thinks.

2) Bother. They have numerous complicated forms and possibly appeals processes to go through if you're denied a claim. That's an annoyance and can even be more expensive than the claim, if you need to hire a lawyer and take days off work.

3) Legal threats. You may be threatened with insurance fraud charges to convince you to drop a claim.

4) Inefficient behavior, like taking risks while driving "because the insurance will cover it if we crash".

5) Rates increase if you make a claim, for some types of insurance.

6) Privacy concerns. They ask a lot of private questions, especially for medical insurance, and you can't count on them keeping it all confidential. Maybe they will, maybe they won't (even if required to by law).

7) You can't count on it. That is, they can deny claims due to "acts of God" or numerous other exclusions in the fine print. They can also just deny a payment to which you are clearly legally entitled and hope you will die or run out of money before you can force them to pay through the courts. StuRat (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Supreme Court

How many, and which of the US Supreme Court of 9 Justices, if any, have, during their judicial careers, handed down a death sentence, by whatever means of execution? 92.30.0.166 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of them, as far as I can tell; most of them started as federal appeals judges, if I'm reading the articles correctly, except for Sotomayor; she's the only one who was in a position to "hand down" a sentence of any kind. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[removed-BB]

Baseball, I usually respect and admire and welcome your responses to questions here - but on re-reading my original question, I did say, "during their judicial careers". I am offended that you thought it necessary to instruct me that "The Supreme Court itself doesn't really "hand down" sentences". I may not be a US citizen but we lesser mortals outside wonderland do know something about the US legal system, you may be surprised to know. Which is what inspired my question as it so happens. But thanks for your response anyway. And thanks to the other, more helpful respondents here. Thanks folks. Jeez..........92.30.0.166 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[removed-BB]

Theoretically, yes; but as our SCOTUS article states, in practice the only original jurisdiction cases the Court takes are State X vs. State Y. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[removed-BB]

Jpgordon says above that most of them started off as federal appeals judges. This sounds impressive to an English Law student like me - do lawyers in the US not have to start on the 'bottom rung' of the judiciary? --Joe^Talk_Work 21:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To take some bio history from today's featured article, Antonin Scalia, as an example:

He attended Georgetown University as an undergraduate, and obtained his Bachelor of Laws degree from Harvard Law School. After spending six years in a Cleveland law firm, he became a law school professor. In the early 1970s, he served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, first at minor administrative agencies, and then as an assistant attorney general. He spent most of the Carter years teaching at the University of Chicago, where he became one of the first faculty advisers of the fledgling Federalist Society. In 1982, he was appointed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President Ronald Reagan.

Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that many appellate judges in the U.S. can and do come directly from private practice or academia (if they have had outstanding careers in either sphere), without having to first spend time as a trial judge. But many trial judges do get promoted to the appellate courts as well. And then we also have this strange policy of electing judges in some states, which occasionally results in nonlawyer wackos being elected to state courts and wreaking havoc because they have no idea what they are doing. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]