• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Supreme Court justices have had experience being a judge at some point?

Should Supreme Court Justices have had experience as judges?

  • Total voters
    64
Ockham said:
Yeah... and?
Click to expand...

And, I guess I think he's more qualified to say what is required for a Supreme Court Justice than you are. Do you have a stronger argument for requiring Bench experience than you have already offered?
 
The Uncola said:
Do you have anything beyond STUPID, childish, personal insults to add or is that your entire act?
Click to expand...
You dismiss everyone that thinks USASC candidates should have some experience as doing it for purely partisian reasons.

Apparently you have nothing to offer beyond STUPID, childish, personal insults to those that think a candidate should have some experience. Not surprising though. :roll:


.
 
Dezaad said:
And, I guess I think he's more qualified to say what is required for a Supreme Court Justice than you are.
Click to expand...
That might make sense if my opinion could effect the outcome of the judges but since it does not, and you know that, you're little point about him being more qualified is irrelevant. His opinion is equal to mine as Scalia's opinion cannot effect the make up of the court any more than my opinion can.

Do you have any point to make that would be at all relevant?

Dezaad said:
Do you have a stronger argument for requiring Bench experience than you have already offered?
Click to expand...
Why would I need one? Why not ask the question... why hasn't a non-judge been appointed for almost 40 years?
 
Mellie said:
As you know, Obama has nominated Elena Kagan for Supreme Court Justice. Here's a portion of the article from politico...

As solicitor general, Kagan serves as the nation’s top lawyer arguing cases before the high court. Yet Kagan is highly unusual in one way – she has never been a judge. It’s the first time in nearly four decades that someone would join the court, if confirmed, without any prior judicial experience. The last to do so was William Rehnquist, who went on to become chief justice.


Read more: President Obama to Senate: Act fast - Josh Gerstein and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

Do you think Supreme Court Justices should have experience being a judge before being appointed as a Supreme Judge for life?
Click to expand...

One needn't be a judge to know the Constitution. Simple as that. There have been many Justices who weren't judges. 41 in fact. This is nothing new.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
One needn't be a judge to know the Constitution. Simple as that. There have been many Justices who weren't judges. 41 in fact. This is nothing new.
Click to expand...

Is that the only qualification required to be a Justice? "Know the constitution"?
 
TOJ said:
You dismiss everyone that thinks USASC candidates should have some experience as doing it for purely partisian reasons.

Apparently you have nothing to offer beyond STUPID, childish, personal insults to those that think a candidate should have some experience. Not surprising though. :roll:


.
Click to expand...

I see. So your answer is no, you don't have anything of value to add. Understood.
 
Mellie said:
As you know, Obama has nominated Elena Kagan for Supreme Court Justice. Here's a portion of the article from politico...

As solicitor general, Kagan serves as the nation’s top lawyer arguing cases before the high court. Yet Kagan is highly unusual in one way – she has never been a judge. It’s the first time in nearly four decades that someone would join the court, if confirmed, without any prior judicial experience. The last to do so was William Rehnquist, who went on to become chief justice.


Read more: President Obama to Senate: Act fast - Josh Gerstein and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

Do you think Supreme Court Justices should have experience being a judge before being appointed as a Supreme Judge for life?
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters.

The Supreme Court doesn't function in the same way a Criminal or Civil court functions - they follow a very different standard. I think it might be helpful for some, but confuse others.
 
Ockham said:
Is that the only qualification required to be a Justice? "Know the constitution"?
Click to expand...

Yes. Simple as that.

Now, you need to demonstrate that knowledge. And considering that Kagan is one of the most respected Constitutional scholars in the country, I think she's done a pretty damn fine job of demonstrating it.

Maybe you don't like some of her views, but she's probably the smartest Constitutional mind in America.
 
Ockham said:
That might make sense if my opinion could effect the outcome of the judges but since it does not, and you know that, you're little point about him being more qualified is irrelevant. His opinion is equal to mine as Scalia's opinion cannot effect the make up of the court any more than my opinion can.
Click to expand...
Anyone who thinks that the reason we're posting to this forum is to have a significant impact on the political processes in this country should just shut up now.
Do you have any point to make that would be at all relevant?
Click to expand...
Do you?

Why would I need one?
Click to expand...
I don't know, maybe because you're on a political discussion forum.

Why not ask the question... why hasn't a non-judge been appointed for almost 40 years?
Click to expand...
Given the illustrious history of non-Judges on the SCOTUS, I can't see any good reason, though I can see a few possible political ones.

Scalia, on the other hand seems to think as I do. I think a better question to ask is why he feels that way. Why would he hold that a diversity of backgrounds is more important than conformity (of backgrounds)? Does he believe that such diversity brings a certain balance of perspectives to the highest court in the land?
 
TOJ said:
You dismiss everyone that thinks USASC candidates should have some experience as doing it for purely partisian reasons.

Apparently you have nothing to offer beyond STUPID, childish, personal insults to those that think a candidate should have some experience. Not surprising though. :roll:


.
Click to expand...

All you managed was to insult a state, and then you complain about some one else not offering enough?
 
Ockham said:
Yes, history has shown others with no bench experience have fulfilled the position of justice well - I still don't agree with it, regardless of political affiliation,
Click to expand...

Why don't you agree with it if you acknowledge that history has shown there is no relationship between bench experience and the effectiveness of the justice? What's the purpose of limiting ourselves to candidates with bench experience, if it has no bearing on their performance either way?
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'd rather have someone who graduated from the top of one of the best law schools in the country and then became DEAN of that same top law school in the country and who has argued before the Supreme Court...

...than someone who graduated from No Name Law School and through connections got appointed to some judgeship somewhere and has done nothing extraordinary.

Not to say those are our choices! My point is merely that experience wearing a robe is not always the most important thing to look at.
 
Kandahar said:
Prestige and experience are two different things. Why should it matter how prestigious someone's background is when considering them for a Supreme Court appointment? What do you mean by "prestige," and is there a correlation between their prestige and their effectiveness on the court?
Click to expand...

I'm using prestige as a proxy for both quality and experience. Back in the 1800s and early 1900s, the lower federal courts were generally crappy and didn't do all that much. Many of the best legal minds went into politics, and for many of those that stayed within the court system, they gained a relatively small amount of experience. As a result, when the president was looking for new Justices, many of the best candidates came from outside the court system.

Nowadays, the lower federal courts are far more important and are generally among the highest positions that lawyers will aspire to. As a result, a larger portion of the best legal minds go to the court system, and those that are there gain highly relevant experience. Accordingly, they're now a far more common source of SC justices than they were in the past.

Again, I'm not saying that it's impossible (or even unlikely) to be able to find someone outside the judiciary who has the requisite background to sit on the court. I already said that I think Kagan qualifies. My point is that there is a very good reason why almost all Justices come from the court system nowadays, despite that not always being the case.

The Uncola said:
About 1/3 of all SC Justices have not had any previous experience as judges.

Simply put, this is a non-issue brought up by those who's real problem is that President Barack Obama nominated this person and nothing more. Pure, partisan crap.
Click to expand...

FilmFestGuy said:
One needn't be a judge to know the Constitution. Simple as that. There have been many Justices who weren't judges. 41 in fact. This is nothing new.
Click to expand...

So is this the new mantra? Again, please reread the thread where we've discussed why its absolutely useless to cite old figures as proof of current practice.

I'd bet that if you go back to pre-history, 95% of great world leaders never graduated high school. Does that mean that if a high school dropout were to run for president today, we could just say "Oh, well 95% of other leaders never graduated either, so it's okay"? Of course not, because it's foolish to use outdated statistics to draw conclusions about modern practice.

FilmFestGuy said:
Now, you need to demonstrate that knowledge. And considering that Kagan is one of the most respected Constitutional scholars in the country, I think she's done a pretty damn fine job of demonstrating it.

Maybe you don't like some of her views, but she's probably the smartest Constitutional mind in America.
Click to expand...

:rofl :rofl :rofl

Where are you people getting this ****? Again, Kagan is quite smart, but she is in no way "the smartest Constitutional mind in America." Con law isn't even her field of expertise.

When you make up things like this in order to make her sound better, you're just taking away from her actual accomplishments.
 
Dezaad said:
Anyone who thinks that the reason we're posting to this forum is to have a significant impact on the political processes in this country should just shut up now.
Click to expand...
Then you're comment about Scalia's opinion being more qualified? Still irrelevant.

Dezaad said:
Do you?
Click to expand...
Presidential appointments for the SCOTUS should have 1 to 2+ years on the bench prior to their appointment.

Dezaad said:
I don't know, maybe because you're on a political discussion forum.
Click to expand...
My original point stands. You've made no resonable or substantiated argument to refute it. Hence the lack to needing an additional or new one.

Dezaad said:
Given the illustrious history of non-Judges on the SCOTUS, I can't see any good reason, though I can see a few possible political ones.
Click to expand...
Given the last 40 years of that illustrious history and lacking unqualified appointees... but you don't seem to want to discuss that part.

Dezaad said:
Scalia, on the other hand seems to think as I do. I think a better question to ask is why he feels that way.
Click to expand...
Why don't you write him a nice letter and ask him? As for me, I prefer law and judges to use facts, not emotions.
 
Kandahar said:
Why don't you agree with it if you acknowledge that history has shown there is no relationship between bench experience and the effectiveness of the justice? What's the purpose of limiting ourselves to candidates with bench experience, if it has no bearing on their performance either way?
Click to expand...

I never agreed nor acknowledged... which is probably why I don't agree or acknowledge.
 
Ockham said:
I never agreed nor acknowledged... which is probably why I don't agree or acknowledge.
Click to expand...

You said that history has shown that justices without bench experience have turned out to be good justices, but you still don't agree with appointing people without bench experience. My question is why? What exactly is the benefit of bench experience, as it relates to a SCOTUS nominee?
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
You said that history has shown that justices without bench experience have turned out to be good justices, but you still don't agree with appointing people without bench experience. My question is why? What exactly is the benefit of bench experience, as it relates to a SCOTUS nominee?
Click to expand...

probably to get an idea how she is going to rule on controversial issues.
 
TurtleDude said:
probably to get an idea how she is going to rule on controversial issues.
Click to expand...

It's certainly legitimate to try to infer how she might rule on controversial issues, but that's a separate issue from experience. One does not necessarily need to have bench experience to get an idea of one's general legal philosophy. Similarly, bench experience is no guarantee that people know anything about someone's legal philosophy. Think David Souter.
 
Kandahar said:
It's certainly legitimate to try to infer how she might rule on controversial issues, but that's a separate issue from experience. One does not necessarily need to have bench experience to get an idea of one's general legal philosophy. Similarly, bench experience is no guarantee that people know anything about someone's legal philosophy. Think David Souter.
Click to expand...

having argued a bunch of case before two different circuits (right below the supremes) I don't think judicial experience is all that necessary. I also think a president has the right to appoint whom he chooses as long as they meet basic qualfications. And Kagan does. However, she is no where near a top choice IMHO. She was not an experienced appellate litigator (as was Roberts or THurgood Marshall). She was not a distinguished judge (Alito, etc). She was not a highly respected constitutional scholar whose works are regularly cited by judges and other scholars alike (such as Akhil Reed Amar, Pamela Karlan, Steven Calabresi, William Van Alstyne). She was a good Dean at harvard who hired diverse faculty and improved student morale. However, as a scholar she has not been (once again) a Pam Karlan, an Akhil Reed Amar or another similar superstar in academia.
 
Ockham said:
Then you're comment about Scalia's opinion being more qualified? Still irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Oh, but it is. You didn't say anything more brilliant than he did about the matter. So, when I am weighing who is more convincing, I'd have to say him. Hands down. Because of who he is. And, who you're not.

Presidential appointments for the SCOTUS should have 1 to 2+ years on the bench prior to their appointment.
Click to expand...
Again? Scalia says the exact opposite. He's a brilliant legal mind, and a Supreme Court Justice for decades. If you're not going to make a more substantive argument, I'm going to have to go on credibility of the people making the declarations. You lose.

My original point stands. You've made no resonable or substantiated argument to refute it. Hence the lack to needing an additional or new one.
Click to expand...
You've made no reasonable or substantiated argument to support your position to begin with. Just stated your opinion, really.

Given the last 40 years of that illustrious history and lacking unqualified appointees... but you don't seem to want to discuss that part.
Click to expand...
I addressed this elsewhere.

Why don't you write him a nice letter and ask him? As for me, I prefer law and judges to use facts, not emotions.
Click to expand...
Are you infering that Scalia is stating by implication that he wants SCOTUS Justices to employ emotion in their evaluation of the application of the Constitution? Seriously? Scalia, the intellectual leader of the Conservative wing of the SCOTUS wants people with more diverse backgrounds on the SCOTUS because ... he wants more 'heart' in their decision making?

Is it possible that this conservative justice is just indicating that he thinks there needs to be experience from diverse backgrounds? Maybe because that brings wisdom to a conclave? I know, I know, I should go ask him. Aren't YOU interested? YOU are a conservative. HE is the leader of the conservative judicial movement. Aren't you curious, a little bit, about the basis of his opinion on this matter? A little?
 
TurtleDude said:
having argued a bunch of case before two different circuits (right below the supremes) I don't think judicial experience is all that necessary. I also think a president has the right to appoint whom he chooses as long as they meet basic qualfications. And Kagan does. However, she is no where near a top choice IMHO. She was not an experienced appellate litigator (as was Roberts or THurgood Marshall). She was not a distinguished judge (Alito, etc). She was not a highly respected constitutional scholar whose works are regularly cited by judges and other scholars alike (such as Akhil Reed Amar, Pamela Karlan, Steven Calabresi, William Van Alstyne). She was a good Dean at harvard who hired diverse faculty and improved student morale. However, as a scholar she has not been (once again) a Pam Karlan, an Akhil Reed Amar or another similar superstar in academia.
Click to expand...

If all this is true, I do think you make some valid points, here, TurtleDude. What you're doing is painting a picture of someone who is really more of an accomplished manager, rather than an accomplished scholar or practician.

Again, if true, I will begin to speculate that this is Obama engaging in a rather dangerous strategy: Wanting so much to appoint younger people that he is risking the credibility of the SCOTUS. Something I cannot support.
 
I was just reminded of this Rehnquist dissent, laying out what could be considered an argument for a more diverse judiciary. The case was about the scope of official immunity, which is a judicially created doctrine. As it stands, the doctrine says that prosecutors and judges enjoy absolute immunity for actions taken within the scope of their employment, while executive officials and legislators only enjoy qualified immunity. Justice Rehnquist argued that this distinction was unsupportable:

If one were to hazard an informed guess as to why such a distinction in treatment between judges and prosecutors, on the one hand, and other public officials, on the other, obtains, mine would be that those who decide the common law know through personal experience the sort of pressures that might exist for such decisionmakers in the absence of absolute immunity, but may not know, or may have forgotten, that similar pressures exist in the case of nonjudicial public officials to whom difficult decisions are committed. But the cynical among us might not unreasonably feel that this is simply another unfortunate example of judges treating those who are not part of the judicial machinery as "lesser breeds without the law."
Click to expand...
 
Dezaad said:
Again, if true, I will begin to speculate that this is Obama engaging in a rather dangerous strategy: Wanting so much to appoint younger people that he is risking the credibility of the SCOTUS. Something I cannot support.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons I think there should be a term limit for the Supreme Court. Maybe 15 years with a maximum of one term. That would stop this race to the bottom for younger and younger justices. Additionally, I think increasing the turnover might help keep the Court's views more up-to-date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom