How John Roberts' Experience compares to Supreme Court Justices

[Skinner]

I was looking for a photo of John Roberts, and I happened to find this.

Can't we do any better than a guy with 2 years' experience?



Source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050722/480/gfx21607220003

[SteppingRazor]

1. It's interesting that the most recent nominees are the least experienced..

With the exception of Ginsburg, of course. Other than that, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia -- it appears lack of experience is no longer a detriment to sitting on the highest court in the land.

[KnaveRupe]

6. And Ginsberg was an anomaly...

...in that she was basically suggested by Orrin Hatch as someone the Repubs would accept without a fight. Ah, if only the Republican president was as willing to work with the opposition party as Clinton was....

[ibegurpard]

9. That's because she's old

and they knew she wouldn't be on for long.

[GOPisEvil]

2. Yes, but if he had a lengthy judical record, there could be objections and

actual debate.

With no record, what's there to question him about?

[Lars39]

3. And for one of those two years he was being spit-polished for the fundies.

[Jersey Devil]

4. Lack of a record provides a basis for stealth

He has no record as a judge so his thinking cannot be picked apart or analyzed. That was one of his major "qualifications" apparently. The Peter Principle in action.

It is the same principle that makes it easier for Governors rather than Senators to get elected President. Governors have no records on foreign policy and many other issues a President would face while Senators usually have extensive records that can be nitpicked and twisted in a campaign.

[realFedUp]

5. Clarence so lowered the bar

what a present he was for the Bushies.

[Generator]

7. On a related note

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts picked up fresh endorsements from Senate Republicans on Friday — and advice from a Democrat who voted against him previously to be more forthright in answering lawmakers' questions. Anti-abortion groups reaffirmed their support for the 50-year-old appellate judge despite the lack of any statement of his personal views on the subject. Said Tony Newman, president of Operation Rescue: "We don't know what's going to happen in the future, but no constructionist judge is going to believe that it's OK to murder babies.

[Goldmund]

8. Wow, interesting

It's almost as if their amount of prior experience is inversely proportional to their wingnutism -- the only thing you'd have to do to make this exact is flip Rehnquist and Stevens.

[paula777]

10. The administration has very low standards - for itself and apparently

for judges

[Fiona]

11. That table is misleading

Rehnquist had 13 years Supreme Court experience before being elevated to Chief Justice, but he had never served as a judge before being named Associate Justice.

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. Beat me to it.

Thanks Fiona! :hi:

[Goldmund]

14. Ah

My comment from #8 is then even more true.

[Fiona]

15. Then how about

Earl Warren? Lewis Powell? Charles Evans Hughes? None of them had been judges.

In fact, out of 108 Supreme Court justices in US history, only 48 of them were sitting judges. Historically, being a judge was decidedly NOT a requirement for a supreme court seat.

[SCDem]

13. Also they want them in there young

so that they will be there longer (a conservatice destructive force)

[Rex]

16. Tony & Tom

Fucking knuckleheads! I bet this guy is as bad.

[WMliberal]

17. Rehnquist was at Justice department before being nominated.

He was never a judge until he sat on the Supreme Court. Where the hell did the ABA get 13 years from?

[Fiona]

18. they seem

to be counting his time as an associate justice before being elevated to Chief. Makes no sense to me, either.