Have any prior SCotUS nominees never been a judge?

[paineinthearse]

Is Meiers the first? What prior nominees have never held position of judge?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

1. Rehnquist and Whizzer White, perhaps? n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. 6 who were confirmed

but two of those were law school professors, Earl Warren was gov of california, and others were experienced attorneys.

[paineinthearse]

5. thank you

So there is precidence.

Not that I am endorsing a lotter commissioner to be an associate justice.

[onenote]

19. hate to mention this

but Miers is an "experienced" attorney.
I know people here would like to believe she's just been sitting at home baking cookies in the 35 years since she graduated law school, but that just isn't so.

She isn't an experienced constitutional lawyer (although she has taught some classes in corporate litigation), but then neither was William O Douglas (SEC chairman and expert in..corporate litigation and bankruptcy). There are numerous other examples.

We need to learn everything we can about Miers. But if we try to depict her as an incompetent lawyer,we will undermine our position when we come up with arguments that actually have merit.

onenote

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. too true. it is too bad that finding out anything will be impossible

her history over the past 12 years, as Bush's diaper changer, will prevent anyone from finding out who she really is.
as if. AS IF he and she NEVER discussed abortion over 12 years of a close professional relationship which involved heavy political decisions on a daily basis.
That is pure outrageous rot. The thing of it is, too many people will swallow that one whole, because our MSM still is not strong enough to stand up and mention it.

[MaineDem]

3. Earl Warren was Governor

Not sure if he had ever been a judge.

[Tesla]

7. She is Bush's lawyer!!

And writes his morning and evening briefings!

Client/lawyer privilege!!!!!

"Baghdad Boob!!"

[melissinha]

13. attorney client privilege

begs the question, if you can't divulge anything, how can the Senate ensure the people that they have done their job insofar as her qualifications and temperament etc? Will her position as a Bush confidant and legal gatekeeper cloud her judgment as a judge? Which we can all bet it does... what I mean is this "attorney client privelege" can also be turned around as "is your service on this court going to serve as a privelege to your previous clients"?

[ReadTomPaine]

4. Let's see..

There was Rehnquist, Warren, Taft, Douglas, Clark, White & Goldberg.. off the top of my head..

[Rowdyboy]

6. The total number is nearly 40....Approximately 1/4 of all justices

have never served as judges.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. i knew of several inclg Rehnquist, but did not know it was 40

quite a few, when you think about it.

watching freeper heads explode takes some of the sting away. The sting being that I mistrust anyone selected by bush.

[ArkDem]

12. Quit throwing out those facts! It just RUINS the outrage!

:party:

[Rowdyboy]

15. Beleive me, a few facts NEVER gets in the way of outrage....

Don't misunderstand....I dislike Ms Mier intently but thats not the reason to oppose her. Hell, you don't even have to be a lawyer to sit on the court. I'll never forget how shocked I was when my consitutional law professor told me that. It just blew me away but its totally true.

[kikiek]

8. This one feels wrong for other reasons. Seems too much like the

Mike Brown and FEMA thing. Cronyism hasn't been good for the country with Bush. Also I would like to know they've studied Constitutional Law like Roberts did. This country is at a pivotal time. We are going to pull together or pull apart. Not a good time to give someone a go at a lifetime appointment. Seems like a flippant and not very well thought out appointment. Bush isn't going to change.

[Jacobin]

9. There is no requirement that they even have a law degree

Since before the 1900's people just 'read for the law' to take a bar exam and didn't go to law school

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I am not, in concept, opposed to non-judge Supremes, not even non-

-lawyer Supremes.

I think it is a good thing to have someone who reacts to the law (judges) on the basis of a personal moral compass and life experience.

That can also be a very naive and pollyanna type position.

But think about it. The law, in the end, as about fairness and justice and rightness. The great 'judges' of history weren't lawyers. They didn't even **have** lawyers for most of history.

The key to success in such a choice, however, is an open and honest confirmation hearing.

In such a case, the nominee's 'record' would be the nominee's life. Family background, associations, service, pattern of giving, jobs held, and on and on, all form the basis by which such a nominee should be judged.

In the specific case of Harriett Miers, I don't see how the Dems could be wrong by making such an argument when they ask for her records. The totality of the person is what's being evaluated, since she has no juducial record.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Renquist and Earl Warren

[AllegroRondo]

16. Not in over 30 years

Rhenquist was the last.

[onenote]

20. only nine justices have been appointed in those 30 years

and Rehnquist and Powell were named the same day -- neither were judges. So you could say that 2 of the last 11 were not judges.

By the way, three of the previous nine before that also were non-judges.

onenote

[AllegroRondo]

27. but those nine are the entire court

there are currently NO justices that had no previous experience as a judge.

[melissinha]

17. I've had it!

The question we should be asking is are there not hundreds of more qualified individuals who are more qualified and who do not have a conflict of interest than Ms. Miers. Can you imagine how many experienced judges who would really deserve this job more than this woman whose loyalty to the President should be considered her most important disqualifying factor?

I want the press to start asking... are these appointments of people who have worked with the administration simply cover in case the corruption scandals reach the president himself? THere is no denying this culture of corruption which is boiling these days, are she and Roberts two "Get out of Jail Free" Cards... SCOTUS definitely served as a "TRump" card when it came to the election.

[paineinthearse]

18. Imagine the press frenzy of Bill Clinton had nominated.....

Vincent Foster?

Yikes!

[ReadTomPaine]

26. I like that angle! She's the "Vince Foster" nominee. n/t

[serryjw]

21. I have to agree you hit the 2 most important points for me

1) conflict of interest ......IF he was out of office it would be a different subject but he isn't. SHE knows all his secrets.That scares me.
2) More qualified..OK< we have had plenty that were not jurists but her experience is very thin. There are many more qualified. Even OWENS ( whom we would have filibuster) is more qualified.

[onenote]

22. question: what makes one person more/less qualified to be a justice

I really am curious as to what people think and why. Robert Bork was a former professor, solicitor general, acting attorney general, federal court judge. He was "qualified" by the standards that I've seen suggested by some. But while he might have had experience and expertise in constitutional law -- he would've been a disaster.

onenote

[serryjw]

23. Bork was qualified

just like Scalia...They are both off of 'mainstream' and for a lifetime appointment, IMHO, is a disaster

[ProfessorPlum]

25. Good article on this

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002538138_miersjudge04.html

Among the other justices for whom the high court was their first judgeship
were: Lewis Powell, Arthur Goldberg, Earl Warren, Tom Clark, Hugo Black, William
Douglas and Felix Frankfurter.

and others listed.