Wait. Why are non-lawyers and non-judges even being considered?

[LLStarks]

Forgive my ignorance, but can someone explain this to me? Is it something about Supreme Court history that makes this OK?

[GodlessBiker]

1. There is nothing in the Constitution which requires that a SC pick be a lawyer or a judge.

[LLStarks]

4. But doesn't that make sense in terms of citing precedent or acting as an arbiter of the Constitution

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. Louis Brandeis, IIRC, wasn't a judge before his nomination....

[onenote]

35. quite a few SCOTUS justices had no prior experience as judges

All were lawyers; many served as attorney general or assistant AG at the federal or state level. A few were academics. While I believe all of the current members of the court had prior judicial experience, some of the more recent examples of justices without prior service as a judge include Earl Warren, William Douglas, Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas and Byron White. (In an earlier post I mistakenly included Thurgood Marshall in this list; however Marshall did serve as an appellate judge FROM 1961 to 1965, when he left the bench to become Solicitor General, the post he was holding when, in 1967, he was nominated to the Supreme Court.)

[GodlessBiker]

27. I don't think the "official" interpretation of our Constitution should be reserved ...

to lawyers or sitting judges. This is not a technocracy.

The Constitution belongs to everyone and I have always thought that one or two seats on the SC should be reserved for non-lawyers.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. IMO you need to have legal training to interpret the constitution

I certainly don't think only judges are qualified nor just people who actually practice law. Maybe there would be a case of somebody who was so brilliant that they can understand law without any formal training. But I think they would be few and far between. Certain jobs require certain qualifications. Appointing somebody without a law degree to the Supreme Court would, under most circumstances, be comparable to appointing the head of the Arabian Horse Association to be FEMA director.

[Bandit]

36. Do you think all those that wrote the Constitution were Lawyers?

:shrug:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

39. Yes. They were all educated and licensed to practice law in a country that didn't yet exist.

:eyes:

[GodlessBiker]

42. IMHO, we all are fundamentally qualified to interpret the document which governs our lives.

You may appreciate one person's interpretation, historical analysis, rationale, or what have you more than another person's, but that does not make the person more qualified to interpret a document which we all must live under.

[LynneSin]

2. If Clarence Thomas or that chick Bush tried to appoint are qualified...

then heck nominate my mailman - he's just as qualified too

:eyes:

[Deep13]

5. Do you think Meyers ever drunk-dials Bush? nt

[LynneSin]

8. I kinda figured he drunk-dialed Meyers

:rofl:

[KittyWampus]

26. It is Harriet Meirs, not Meyers. And she was the one who scrubbed his TANG records.

She was a willing fixer.

[hlthe2b]

18. heh heh....

I'm betting she's thought about doing so. ;)

[Deep13]

3. Like who? nt

[mdmc]

6. The law is about interpretation

Think of all the lawyers that think that the Constitution should be read as is (for instance, women do not have the right to vote / blacks are 2/3rds of a person) vs. a non-lawyer that understands that All humans are created equal.

I would take the Dali Lama as a justice before I took Karl Rove (a lawyer). One would make America a much more just country..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Rove's Not A Lawyer

~

[mdmc]

12. Take any of the lawyers from the GOP/DLC

they would all suck on the bench..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Abe Lincoln Would Have Done All Right

~

[blogslut]

11. Karl Rove may be many things but he is no lawyer

The man does not have a college degree of any kind.

[Davis_X_Machina]

Earl Warren was AG and governor of California...

....and before that a DA. Zero time on the bench before his nomination as Chief Justice.

[Ron Green]

7. I've always thought non-lawyers might have great value as judges.

A sober and reasoned decision, made outside the morass of legal technicalities, might be better than some of the miscarriages of justice we've seen over the years.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Yes. nt

[Paladin]

31. No. (n/t)

[tonysam]

9. Why was a non-educator picked as Secretary of Education?

Perhaps Obama is looking for a basketball buddy to place on the high court.

[JPZenger]

22. Bush's last Sec. of Education had never taught

Obama's current Sec. of Education ran the 3rd largest school system in the country.

Bush's last Secretary of Education had zero experience teaching. The one before that was the Superintendent of the 4th largest school system in the country.

[tonysam]

25. Arne did a piece of shit job with Chicago. Your post fails. n/t

[HereSince1628]

14. When a slave to corporations is appointed, they need a hint of fig leaf

that is provided by that law school diploma

[onenote]

15. who is considering non-lawyers?

arm chair presidents here at DU? arm chair pundits?

I would bet a very large sum that President Obama is not considering any non-lawyers.

Non-judges? Sure. While I believe all of the current members of the court previously served as judges, you don't have to go back very far to find SCOTUS justices who had no prior judicial experience -- Powell, Marshall, Fortas, White, to name just a few.

[JPZenger]

23. There was talk of an elected official, but that would still be a lawyer

Obama has too much respect for Constitutional Law to appoint a non-lawyer. The talk has been that they want to at least consider a lawyer with many years of practical experience as an elected official, to balance out the court. Some people feel that too many nominees over the years have been career judges or law professors.

In any case, you can bet that the nominee will be no older than 50 years old. Every President wants influence on the court for many years.

[FarCenter]

16. Instead of long committee hearings, why not rotate candidates throug the DC Superior Court divisions

About a week in each division should be enough to establish whether or not they have a "judicial temperament".

[Captain Hilts]

19. Because they have public policy experience. Good to have some non-lawyers there too. nt

[TheDebbieDee]

21. A Supreme Court Justice without a law degree

can see complex legal issues with the perspective of the lay person. While they may make decisions that may not necessarily be legal, their decisions would make SENSE!

[onenote]

24. joe the plumber doesn't have a law degree

Having a law degree doesn't guarantee that a judge's decisions will make sense. But neither does not having one. One problem with picking a non-lawyer is what exactly would you look at to determine whether they are qualified to interpret and apply the law, particularly some of the more obscure legal principles that often arise in scotus cases.

[LynneSin]

28. Joe the Plumber doesn't have a plumbing license either

nuff said!

[onenote]

33. point taken!

[TheDebbieDee]

29. More info.......

In total, 38 of 110 Justices were appointed despite having no law degree; 72 achieved at least a Juris Doctorate, and a few have achieved Master's degrees (which is higher than a J.D.). The current trend is toward appointing judges who have law degrees from the nation's best law schools. The schools with the most alumni who joined the Supreme Court are Harvard and Yale.

You can get more info at the link -
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_Supreme_Court_justices_did_not_have_a_law_degree

[onenote]

34. while a number of justices didn't have a law degree, all were members of the bar

It was not uncommon prior to the second half of the 20th Century for individuals to become lawyers without attending law school by "reading" for the bar or apprenticing.

[Paladin]

32. Yeah---Because Who Needs Supreme Court Opinions That Are "Legal"?

Let's all take a deep breath on this one, shall we? Next time you or somebody in your family needs surgery, will you opt for someone to do the procedure who doesn't have a medical degree or training, but who might bring "the perspective of the lay person" to the operating room?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

37. There has been no evidence produced that nonlawyers are in serious consideration.

[Paladin]

40. I Would Hope To Hell Not. (n/t)

[ieoeja]

38. We need folks with training in legal history.

Strict constructionism directly violates a tradition of our legal system that has existed unbroken back to a time pre-dating written law. Our common law is mostly inherited from Anglo-Saxon common law which has always allowed judges to use their "judgement". Both to address gaps in the law and to employ common sense.

Which is a good thing. Because our legislators are not omniscient. Expecting them to write laws that address every possible contingency, present or future, is unrealistic.

Strict constructionism is a Roman concept. That is to say, the concept of a military dictatorship in which the courts were used to bend the powerful to their will. Had we inherited our common law from France, then it would be a valid concept for a US Supreme Court justice as the French justice system borrows extensively from the Roman model. But we did not.

I may disagree with a justice's Conservative interpretation of law. But that does not disqualify a judge. Belief in strict constructionism does.

[ZombieHorde]

41. Anti-education, anti-intellectualism? nt