Weekly Comments Archive
Archived Issue
Sunday, October 7, 2018
ISSUE #947
Doctors, lawyers and the Supreme Court

I heard last week that by 2030 we will likely have a shortage of 50,000 medical doctors. Most of the shortage will be pediatricians and gynecologists. We still have time to reverse the decline, and here’s a way to do it:  increase funding for medical students.

Where would the money come from?   Take it from Law Schools.

Having 50,000 fewer lawyers won’t be a problem. It could even be a blessing if a couple of thousand had intended to become politicians. Granted, this is against my self-interest because doctors are not near as funny as lawyers and politicians.

In case you missed it, the Senate confirmed a new Supreme Court Justice October 6.  Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48.

During the years Will Rogers wrote syndicated newspaper columns, 1922-1935, six new Justices were appointed by Presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. (Roosevelt appointed the first of his nine in 1937.) Four were confirmed by Acclimation, and one by a wide vote margin. The other, Charles Evans Hughes, faced a bit of controversy before being confirmed 52-26. (See quotes below.)

Historic quotes by Will Rogers:

“(Concerning the confirmation of Charles Evan Hughes, the Senate) was ready to vote (5 days ago). Senator Blease asked that it be left over till morning. It was just a formality; there was practically no opposition. If it had been voted on then, there would have been nothing to it, but now look at it? It just shows that if you can start arguing over something, and get enough publicity, and keep the argument going, you can divide our nation overnight as to whether spinach or broccoli are the most nutritious. We can get hot and bothered quicker over nothing, and cool off faster than any nation in the world.” DT #1109, Feb. 13, 1930

“‘Sons of wild jackasses’ (progressive Republican Senators), after six days of braying, were finally haltered by public opinion to the score of Hughes 52, jackasses 26. I hope Mr. Hughes don’t prove as mean as they insinuated. They say he is all for the rich, that if appointed he would take the liquor away from the poor and give it to the wealthy.” DT #1110, Feb. 14, 1930 [Note: the progressive Senators objected to Hughes’ conservative interpretation of the Constitution, his opposition to government control of oil production and transportation, and his generally strong support of the rights of property.]

“There must be something the matter with this fellow Judge (Owen J.) Roberts of the Supreme Court. The Senate passed him unanimously. He must be (peculiar), can’t be human.” DT #1192, May 21, 1930

“Did you see how many thousands of students just graduated all over the country in Law? Going to take an awful lot of crime to support that bunch.” DT #1527, June 15, 1931


    Contact Randall Reeder