Great response.

Thanks! And it's very polite of you to respond in kind rather than levy a noncontributory salvo as bad as my original comment.

Lawyers have a certain kind of reputation in the USA. I'm sure you know what I am referring to.

I do. I also know whom you are referring to. In private practice I worked with some of those who inspire the reputation, and against others. Now I work at a courthouse and am exposed to even more of them than I knew before. My view is that they are a minority that is quantitatively, but not qualitatively, insignificant.

But, the stereotype of a scumbag lawyer did not arise out of falsehoods.

I agree. I think it was perpetuated more by the fact that about half the people involved in lawsuits lose -- and the other half don't feel like they won -- than it was by any truth that most lawyers are scumbags.

But, what I think would make a better politician is someone that studied in the sciences. In my opinion, these are the most (generally speaking) intelligent category of people that should be running our country. I am neither a politician nor a lawyer, but can't imagine that it is rocket science (no connection intended) to vote on laws.

I'm not sure I agree. Maybe your approach of putting scientists in to lawmaking jobs would be best, but I suspect that if we want to minimize the number of lawyers who are lawmakers and increase the presence of professions other than lawyers, it would be better to have a fair cross-section of society rather than just scientists. And Plato would say that Socrates would suggest in response to both of us that our lawmakers should be philosophers. There are all manner of opinions on this.

In any respect, if it's a nonlawyer making laws, then I repeat that my original, if idealistic, desire is to know which lawyer(s) the nonlawyer trusts or is asking advice of. You are correct that making laws is not rocket science. But it's not exactly fingerpainting, either.

I think folks will be more likely to agree with my position that the presence of lawyers on the front end of lawmaking is desirable if they also agree that a function of good lawmaking is to write on paper exactly what you mean to say is the law, and only what you mean to say is the law, in one stroke. (You attempt to do this in one stroke usually because of how much effort it may take to amend that law after lawyers have had a chance to fight about what it means on the back end.)

Now let's take a somewhat-but-not-wholly analogous process from the scientific professions. You want to publish a paper (pass a law) on a study or experiment you have conducted, and you are a good scientist (lawmaker) who wants to communicate what you think are the actual results rather than bend the data to communicate what you want the results to be (pass a law because it's a good law rather than just a law that lobbyist wants). You work on it so that it best reflects what you think your study showed (drafting your law). You then go through peer review (circulating your draft law, collecting votes). If you survive the peer review process, the journal publishes your paper (your draft law is passed into actual law). Now someone thinks your results are not backed by your data (lawsuit/criminal indictment that isn't an obvious winner under that law). He writes a letter to the editor of your journal (sues or criminally prosecutes on the basis of the law you drafted).

I think what happens now is the analogy breaks down. It is my perception that often the journal will either reach out to you for a response to publish in the same issue that it publishes the letters criticizing your study, or it will gladly publish your response in the next journal. This is the collegial behavior of academic publishing. Courts don't generally reach out to you the lawmaker now and ask for a response to support what you meant back when you drafted the law. (Sometimes they will look for evidence extrinsic to the law and relatively contemporary to the drafting to determine what you meant, but even that is not guaranteed.) Instead, they do something more like asking another person who writes letters to the editor to respond to the first one.

This is why I think having lawyers on the front end of lawmaking is desirable. It helps to know how words and phrases (especially terms of art) are likely to be interpreted, how courts are likely to apply canons of statutory construction, what sorts of gamesmanship litigants might attempt, and so on. If the lawyers themselves are not the lawmakers, then it's important that the lawmaker-scientist has the assistance of good lawyers to make sure her law will do what she wants it to.

In addition to intelligence, what is most important are good upstanding morals and convictions, which, according to stereotype, your profession is last on the list.

I don't know about that. Intelligence and good morals are important. "Convictions" may not always be a good thing in light of your other desire for open mindedness in your lawmakers. And I think in this crowd, arguing that my profession is lower on the list of good upstanding morals and convictions than, say, preachers is ballsy, so good on ya'. :)

Career politicians have too much baggage and favors and deals for this to be possible.

Maybe. This is why I understand and often, but not always, agree with the resentment against them.

But, most of the "asshats" have very similar resumes: career politician or lawyer.

Maybe. I think this is probably a point of disagreement between us that is at or near the foundation of our different views on whether it is desirable to have lawyers in politics.