I suggest the only qualification for SCOTUS is to be a thoughtful person.

[Ron Green]

How much jurisprudential experience does one really need to sit on the highest court? By the time these cases come before the justices, they are pared down to questions of Constitutionality and the tenor of the times. A good justice needs simply to read the Constitution regularly and have an open mind about the possibilities of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Religio-crazies need not apply, any more than Godless Communists.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

1. I happen to like

the highest judges in the land being JUDGES, ya know?

Just my opinion....

:P

[Mr_Spock]

11. True, but jury's aren't even lawyers and they are able to make judgments

Hey, don't get me wrong here, I don't like Bush and think that anybody who thinks he's intelligent should be dope slapped ad-infinitum, but the idea that an average person can't interpret the Constitution is in itself prejudicial. There is something exciting about the idea of "we the people" - even common schmoes - can participate in high places. Unfortunately we allowed an idiot moron fool to become president, so it doesn't always work out. Clinton was from a hard upbringing and he turned out quite well though!!

[jilln]

16. juries get the laws EXPLAINED to them

during a trial, by .... lawyers and judges. And they are not required to figure out how the system works or how the trial will be run or which evidence is legal to present.

[Mr_Spock]

19. Right, so I believe that a SCOTUS candidate MUST be a lawyer

Which has been true as far as I can tell. It's also supposedly true that 26 SCOTUS justices were never judges (though I haven't confirmed that myself - I read it here).

[ClintonTyree]

25. Juries make decisions based on laws that are........

explained to them by Judges. They have a finite number of decisions that they can make. They cannot interpret law. A Supreme Court Judge has the opportunity to not only interpret but enact law, like it or not, it's the truth. Ergo, I would prefer that person have some Judicial experience, but I can see your point. We'll agree to disagree. ;)

[Mr_Spock]

27. We the people are too stupid to know how to interpret the Constitution

We do want average Americans running this country don't we? A good lawyer should know the law as good as anybody. Once again, I don't necessarily like this two-faced crony-troll, but I do think that a non-hardened to the system non-judge could bring a fresh perspective to the SCOTUS. JMHO.

[ClintonTyree]

30. As you said, a GOOD Lawyer should know the law.....

after reading some of shenanigans her past law firm was associated with I'm not at all sure she IS a "good Lawyer". There are capable Lawyers and "good" Lawyers. Is she capable? Undoubtedly. Is she a "good" Lawyer? From what I'm reading that point is becoming harder to swallow.

[Mr_Spock]

35. Once again, I'm not talking about this crony hack troll

I am simply pointing out that a good lawyer can be a good judge - as many SCOTUS judges have only been lawyers when they got there. And all judges start out as lawyers, SCOTUS or not.

[Czolgosz]

39. Actually, some low level judges are not lawyers, but I have never heard of

any appellate judge, much less any Supreme Court judge, who was not a lawyer in modern times.

[Ron Green]

42. I'd like to see a poet on the big bench. Why the hell not?

Couldn't be any worse. Would probably be better.

[Czolgosz]

50. Judge Bruce Wright was both a great judge and a poet. Here's a link:

http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/2796/Bruce_Wright_Judge_Poet_and_much_more___

[Ron Green]

59. Thanks for the link.

I didn't know about this man, and now I do. He represented some of my favorite people in the world, and stood for things I believe in.

[Czolgosz]

67. He was a good man, a good judge, and a poet -- hell would freeze over if

Bush nominated someone like that.

[Mr_Spock]

44. Yeah, I was assuming that most all judges of any high-level court

would be lawyers. I suppose it's not technically required that they be a lawyer to be a judge, but common sense tells me I want someone trained in the law behind the bench.

[Czolgosz]

47. The only judges I know of in modern times who have not been judges have

generally been at the justice of the peace or municipal court level. Even at that bottom level, it is much more common than not that the judges are all lawyers.

[Czolgosz]

34. People aren't too stupid to know how to interpret the Constitution, but

there is a great deal of background information one also needs to know (e.g., prior cases which have addressed the same or related issues, procedural boundaries to the judges' discretion, etc.).

Asking whether a person without legal experience or training is "too stupid" to interpret the Constitution is like asking whether a person without experience or training in auto mechanics is "too stupid" to disassemble and then reassemble a car's engine. They are not too stupid to do it (hell, near anyone is smart enough to do it), but they are not trained to do it and so they would be more likely to do it wrong and it would take them longer than a person with the training and background.

[Mr_Spock]

37. OK - so is it possible for a decent lawyer to be a good SCOTUS judge?

History says yes. DO I think that Bush's crony will be good judge - I don't know, but knowing the judgment of who recommended her, I rather doubt that she can be all that good.

[Czolgosz]

41. We are in complete agreement.

[Czolgosz]

38. I don't see where in the Constitution it says a judge has to be a lawyer.

Here is the relevant part for you to check yourself (I didn't read it carefully, but I've read carefully in many times the past and I don't recall any such requirement):

Article. III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

[Mr_Spock]

43. I'm sure you're correct - it was my belief that they should be a lawyer

I wasn't claiming that the SCOTUS nominee MUST be a lawyer constitutionally, but I personally believe that a SCOTUS nominee MUST be a lawyer (to be taken seriously). Semantics, I know :D

[Czolgosz]

49. Again, we are in complete agreement.

[Czolgosz]

31. Juries only decide fact issues based on the evidence; judges decide legal

issues in all cases.

[Mr_Spock]

32. Read the follow up posts above :D

I make points as I go. One post doesn't asnwer all questions :D

[Czolgosz]

40. I should have read them all first. Sorry.

[Mr_Spock]

45. No prob

I'm just too lazy to retype anything :D

[onenote]

62. didn't like that earl warren guy then, huh?

or William O. Douglas, Arthur Goldberg, Tom Clark, Byron WHite? Funny, that's five of the seven justices who found the existence of the constitutional right of privacy in the Griswold case.

Might re-think that opinion.

onenote

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. Well, sometimes it does seem like

"The Law" is huge maze impossible for lay people to follow at all. That is a unique take on SCOTUS nominations.

Have there ever been members of the Supreme Court who were not attorneys?

[Fenris]

12. No.

There has not been.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/SupremeCourtConfirmationFAQ.shtml#q2

[Angry Girl]

3. I just heard some evangelist on the TV say the same thing....

and I totally disgree. I want my firefighter to have firefighting experience. I want my secretary to have secretarial experience.

A preacher, on the other hand, hell, any thoughtful person can do that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

4. *cough*.....

As a minister, may I quibble with your final conclusion?

[Angry Girl]

6. Woops! Sorry! No offense intended! I was thinking of...

all those self-proclaimed ministers, particularly out here in Mormon-land. For imams, rabbis, and the like, there is a lot of doctrine to study, to be sure.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. Well I have to admit to being elitist.

I have a rather low opinion of many televangelists myself. ;)

[ClintonTyree]

28. I was about to chime in using Pat Robertson......

Fred Phelps, Falwell, Angely etal. as proof that any thoughtful person could be a minister, but you've got it covered. ;)

[Pacifist Patriot]

52. I think it's proof that any profession has ...

it's shining stars, it's dedicated workhouses and it's contingent of bad apples.

Anyone can do anything badly.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

9. I share your opinion on the "preacher" qualifications

Same qualifications apply to palm reader, tarot dealer,tea-leaf sorter, I ching tosser, carnival barker or crystal ball examiner.

[Pacifist Patriot]

17. Um, would be please clarify what you mean by "preacher?"

As a minister, I can assure you my education, training and internships far surpass the skill set required of the professions you list. Being a preacher is part of what I do so I'm curious as to what your definition of preacher is.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

54. Any purveyor of "Pie In The Sky When You Die"

Folks are free to believe what they wish. "Believing," unfortunately, is the hobgoblin of knowing.

I appreciate the time you spent on your beliefs and trust, since you're on DU, that you try to put that time to good use. Thanks for that.

No offense intended. It's just what I *believe.* See? I'm guilty of courting the hobgoblins, myself.

[Pacifist Patriot]

56. Ah, than as a UU I guess I'm safe.

We believe folks are free to believe what they wish. But I guess believing that I'm guilty of courting the hobgoblins too. ;)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

61. Ah, well, UU

that's a horse of a different technicolor. You're OK in my book. I well remember doing a reading of "Spoon River Anthology" one Sunday at the UU Fellowship when I was a youngster. It moved me.

Is it true, as Garrison Keilor says, that if you want to run the Unitarians out of your town, you burn a question mark in their yard?

Oh, that's just awful.

[Pacifist Patriot]

65. No not true. But do you know what you get when you cross a

Jehovah's Witness with a UU? Someone who knocks on your door to ask you what you believe. :)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

66. That's Even WORSE n/t

[eallen]

5. All those past cases don't matter, huh?

I disagree with the famous result of Santa Clara, but (a) it has had tremendous repercussions on jurisprudence in the century and a quarter since it was delivered, and (b) any future decision needs either to respect it, on the basis of stare decisis, or if overturning it, must explain what parts and to what degree, and give lower courts some hint as to how to rule because of that. Think you can write a good ruling on that issue?

And there are hundreds of similar rulings that make up case law, on everything from how to interpret what constitutes an establishment of religion (the Lemon test) to what is implied by "due process." Do you really think it makes sense to begin from scratch, each time these issues arise? If not, if the goal is to create at least a modicum of consistency, then you need someone familiar with Constitutional law.

[Ron Green]

14. Perhaps a good staff of smart law clerks can help in this way.

The justice needs to be able to discern the merits of a case above all, rather than all the gobbledygook of precedent. It seems to me that a good staff can present the issues at hand in a clear enough fashion so that the justice can deliberate and decide, without being mired in minutiae.

[Divernan]

21. Meirs doesn't even have the experience to select law clerks.

The partners in her law firm (she was co-managing atty.) violated the law and professional ethics to the tune of millions of dollars of investors' money. She couldn't manage them. Actually she doesn't need law clerks because she is expected to rubber stamp the new chief justice just the way Clarence Thomas joined in all of Rehnquist's/Scalia's opinions.

Really, the cases chosen for review by the Supreme Court are quite difficult ones - often where different Circuit courts have entered conflicting opinions over the course of years, and strong arguments on both sides. You need a justice with extreme mental discipline and ability to understand the arguments on both sides. All kinds of possible future interpretations must be taken into account. And a lot of the cases have to do with rules of procedure - again, an area with which laymen have no experience or knowledge.

[Ron Green]

24. I agree about extreme mental discipline and ability to understand

arguments on both sides. This is how I would characterize "thoughtfulness." I disagree about the procedure and details. This is what staff are for, and what I would hope justices can rise above.

[Czolgosz]

46. Here's the good news. When you say a judge should be able to

"to discern the merits of a case above all," that is a determination that you don't need a legal degree or judicial experience to make. That's the role of the juror. The jury makes all the decisions about whether the underlying facts have merit, and the judge just takes those facts and sorts out the legal result which arises from those facts which the jury has determined.

[Ron Green]

53. Juror ... Jurist

I hear what you're saying, and you may be right. It may be that the best SCOTUS members are people with long careers in the law. But something keeps gnawing at the back of my mind that, just as with the President, the best qualifications are a mature viewpoint, an open mind, and a vision for what government should and should not be. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, because we'll keep getting lawyers in there, most likely.

[Czolgosz]

57. I think we are entitled to demand a mature viewpoint, an open mind, and a

vision for what government should and should not be PLUS a thorough knowledge of the law and also a judicial or academic track record so we can assess whether the person will make a good Supreme Court Justice.

Lawyers are a dime a dozen. Surely BuchInc could have found one with the viewpoint, open mind, and vision as well as relevant judicial experience if it was their goal to find the most qualified nominee.

[ewagner]

7. No, need to have

the experience of a judge to listen to the competing arguments and decide which has (legal) merit and which does not.

Needs to know the tricks and techniques of lawyers and be able to discern among legal arguments.

[Jersey Devil]

8. Same current rule as for President's, huh?

Who needs qualifications for that either? All you have to be is 35 or over, a native born American and a daddy in the oil business. Nothing bad's gonna happen just because the president is unqualified. Same rules for the supremes too I guess. Good thinking.

[Ron Green]

22. If you say this president is a "thoughtful person," I disagree with you.

Thoughtfulness would be my qualification for SCOTUS.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. They keep bringing up Rehnquist - But at least he clerked

for Justice Jackson and was Assistant Attorney General under Nixon. Man, I can't believe I am defending him, rest his soul...

[etherealtruth]

15. What about Earl Warren?

I can't make up my mind about this. I have no confidence in Miers, but I haven't made up my mind in a general sense.

Guess I'll keep reading the rationale of others in hopes of gaining more perspective.

[onenote]

63. asst attorney general? Big whoopin' deal

I keep seeing references to experience as attorney general or assistant attorney general as though that gives someone more qualification to be SCOTUS justice than just being an experienced, thoughtful attorney? Let's try a quick test: who of these names would you rather see as a SCOTUS justice:

John Mitchell
Ed Meese
William French SMith
Vernon Jordan

onenote

[jilln]

13. You must be joking

Most people, including me, are not even qualified to VOTE, since deciphering what some of these laws they propose really do takes a lot more knowledge on a variety of subjects than most people have. You are seriously suggesting that a person appointed to INTERPRET these laws for the next few decades doesn't even need to have experience in that???

And what's with the "Godless communists" jab? As far as I know, believing in God was not a requirement for any of our government offices.

[Ron Green]

20. I'm not joking, but I'm willing to listen to the views of those who

maintain that the Supreme Court justices must be legal technical wizards. I disagree, though, because a clear sense of what matters in the US and the world is important, in my opinion.

I wasn't jabbing at the Godless communists. I was saying that they are as qualified to serve as the religio-crazies. I don't think a good Justice should be either, but that's just my view.

[mcscajun]

23. If I'm Godless but not a Communist, Can I be on the SC?

Hmmmm?

[Ron Green]

26. Sure - why not?

It's been my observation, though, that most people with lots of life experience and "thoughtfulness" tend to have a spiritual life, along with the mental, emotional, social, physical and financial.

[mcscajun]

48. I fit that description except for the spiritual part. :)

Really.

[ashling]

29. One would think that would be a

qualification for president, too.

[Ron Green]

33. Exactly. We don't need a technical political scientist, just a good man.

Or woman.

[ashling]

36. Not the ONLY qualification,

but they should at least not shy away from thinking, a la Dumbo.

[noiretextatique]

51. yeah...why even bother to go to law school?

and the hell with experience. hey...i quality :eyes:

[Ron Green]

55. Perhaps you do qualify. Would you have voted as Anthony Kennedy did

in the matter of Bush v. Gore? Probably not, and the world would be a better place for your decision.

[noiretextatique]

58. i'm not a bush crony

so i don't qualify. do you think miers would ever go against bush, inc? i don't think so, and of course, since she has no experience as a judge, there is no indication of how she may decide an issue. i do think a track record as a judge on a lower court is a common sense prerequisite for a job on the supreme court. i can't walk into any company and get a job simply because i qualify as a thoughful person. i need experience, skills and references that back up my claims about my track record. why should this job be any different?

[Ron Green]

60. As I posted elsewhere, maybe it shouldn't.

Perhaps you are right and I'm wrong in this. But something tells me that the highest court in the land should be anything BUT a job about legal and technical experience. It should be about deciding what is right and wrong for our country, without being fired for doing it.

But again, you may be right. Maybe it's like any other job.

[noiretextatique]

64. it's like any other job in that the people apointed to the court

should have the basics of experience, including relevant job experience. i am an accoutnant with 20 years job experience. not just anyone can do what i do, skillwise, and after so many years of work experience, i've learned a thing or two about ethics.
on the other hand, miers could turn out to be a big enough person to transcend her personal history, but that's a big question mark, isn't it? especially considering what the other rw idealogues on the court did to the country and to the world with the bush v. gore decision. i certainly don't want a wrong like that to happen again, and i suspect that if it did, miers and roberts would be more concerned about partisanship than about what's right, just like o'connor and rehnquist.