• 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
Why does it seem like it's mostly liberal women that are butt ugly and conservative women are pretty hot? :mrgreen:

Because Alicia Silverstone is HOT!

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEGSBBxlmPw&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Naked Alicia Silverstone PETA PSA[/nomedia]
 
why-where experience is most needed is at the trial level

What for?

I do trials all the time. I also do appeals before the state Supreme Court. They are two completely different skills.

At the trial level, whether something is constitutional or not is hardly ever an issue. My skills have more to do with cross examining and speaking to a jury. I hardly have to discuss minute details about the law at all.

At the appellate level, I have to do a ton of research, write huge briefs, and then be able to discuss obscure cases and laws with the justices.

I believe that appellate experience is very important for a Supreme Court justice, but I also think that you can get that experience by arguing in front of them as well as being on the bench.
 
Yeah, yeah, right. :roll:

Conservatives NEVER choose people based on what they look like. It's just pure coincidence that 99% of all the people they choose are white, and why only good looking women get promoted and get to be on Fox News. Coincidence, I tells ya!

Link? As of the last administration, the vast majority of the highest ranking minorities appointed to positions within government had been appointed by Republicans.
 
Yeah, yeah, right. :roll:

Conservatives NEVER choose people based on what they look like. It's just pure coincidence that 99% of all the people they choose are white, and why only good looking women get promoted and get to be on Fox News. Coincidence, I tells ya!

I didn't realize that fox news is the same as politics. I don't recall too many ugly people on ABC, CBS, NBC either. look at the ladies on the Today show-

same with the stars on "Friends"

NO doubt in my mind that Bush picked Roberts thinking he was the best available conservative legal mind. He got no political quota value for Roberts or Alito. He would have for Estrada and that is why the dems blocked Estrada
 
What for?

I do trials all the time. I also do appeals before the state Supreme Court. They are two completely different skills.

At the trial level, whether something is constitutional or not is hardly ever an issue. My skills have more to do with cross examining and speaking to a jury. I hardly have to discuss minute details about the law at all.

At the appellate level, I have to do a ton of research, write huge briefs, and then be able to discuss obscure cases and laws with the justices.

I believe that appellate experience is very important for a Supreme Court justice, but I also think that you can get that experience by arguing in front of them as well as being on the bench.

And Kagan has argued before a court exactly six times.
 
Minimum of 1 year on the bench. Preferable is 2+


And why?

And how you account for the list of SCOTUS justices that did not serve as judges prior to being appointed. Specifically, Black, Marshal.
 
And why?

And how you account for the list of SCOTUS justices that did not serve as judges prior to being appointed. Specifically, Black, Marshal.

...


Second, yes, we're all aware that historically, most of the members of the Supreme Court were appointed directly out of political positions. That's because historically, most of the lower federal courts were considered to be unprestigious compared to political positions. As a result, the best legal minds went into politics.

Nowadays, that is not at all the case. Politics is quite unprestigious compared to legal positions, such as USA. SG, OLC, or Dist. Ct. Judge. As a result, most of the Justices in the modern era have come from the Art. III courts. Citing to Justices from the 1800s as proof that modern Justices should come from private practice is either disingenuous or uninformed.

There's a reason why it doesn't happen anymore.
 
What for?

I do trials all the time. I also do appeals before the state Supreme Court. They are two completely different skills.

At the trial level, whether something is constitutional or not is hardly ever an issue. My skills have more to do with cross examining and speaking to a jury. I hardly have to discuss minute details about the law at all.

At the appellate level, I have to do a ton of research, write huge briefs, and then be able to discuss obscure cases and laws with the justices.

I believe that appellate experience is very important for a Supreme Court justice, but I also think that you can get that experience by arguing in front of them as well as being on the bench.



Objection your honor

you have 10 seconds to rule

that is where experience comes in

what instant decisions does an appellate judge have to make?

now I have seen new federal district judges look at experienced career law clerks for how to rule on objections. But in that courtroom they are essentially on their own.

appellate judges have law clerks and other judges to bounce ideas off of. they get to examine the record and the briefs leisurely. I have done a couple dozen appellate federal arguments and sat through another 100 or so--some judges don't even have to do anything more than sit and listen while three ivy league law review types take notes and check the citations.

Yeah and being a supreme court or appellate court litigator is just as useful as being a judge for appellate courts. What impressed me about Roberts was not that he was a CoA judge for a couple years-rather he was regarded as one of the top 3-4 USSC advocates in the country

same with say Peter Keisler-former acting AG. clearly a top choice if the GOP gets the WH back in 12 or 16.
 
I disagree - While trial level judges certainly need more experience in how to manage a day to day docket and handle actual court appearances, the SC is mostly concerned with how its decisions will be applied by the lower courts. Probably around 25% of the SC's docket is dedicated to fixing the unmanageable tests that earlier SC decisions created for the lower courts. If a Justice has never sat on a lower court, they have no idea how their decisions will be applied and will not appreciate the confusion they can create.

I completely disagree and CJ Rehnquist was very mindful of the application of USSC decisions to the lower court. and to claim someone cannot appreciate that is bogus. Top appellate litigators (ie Justice Roberts and people like Peter Keisler or Paul Clement) certainly understand that area.

Top appellate litigators have to deal with USSC rulings as well as CoA judges
 
I'll let Scalia (Mr. Conservative Supreme Himself) state the qualifications and makeup necessary to have a good Supreme Court:
Scalia: Varied job experience needed on high court
Jan-3-10 6:08pm
From: ap.org
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he's concerned there aren't more people with varying professional backgrounds being nominated to the nation's highest court.

Scalia was a federal judge before President Reagan nominated him to the court.

He said there were three justices with no prior judicial experience back then and today there are none.

Scalia said he's concerned about the practice because "every aspect of your career broadens your outlook" so "it's good for the court to have people of varying backgrounds."


Scalia spoke Monday to about 600 people at the First Baptist Church in Jackson during a luncheon sponsored by the Mississippi College School of Law.
Scalia: Varied job experience needed on high court - Justice Antonin Scalia - Zimbio

And, with that, I think we can at least dispense with ANY outrage at the nomination of Kagen. It is still reasonable to feel that they ought to have experience. But, any faux outraged people should be directed to Scalia's words.
 
Citing to Justices from the 1800s as proof that modern Justices should come from private practice is either disingenuous or uninformed.

Nice try.

I was obviously giving some factual context to the talking point of the day.

But you knew that...

And, you're incorrect, not all liberals and conservatives believe Earl Warren was a failure. Controversial. But, it's easy to claim you know better from the sidelines 3 decades after the fact.

And, I was talking about Black/Marshal--both 20th century--neither were judges.
 
Does anybody else notice something interesting about this poll? It seems to be ideologically independent. That is, you have members of the right and left voting both ways here. The vote is split for both camps. I must say that this is a rare occurrence.
 
I completely disagree and CJ Rehnquist was very mindful of the application of USSC decisions to the lower court. and to claim someone cannot appreciate that is bogus. Top appellate litigators (ie Justice Roberts and people like Peter Keisler or Paul Clement) certainly understand that area.

Top appellate litigators have to deal with USSC rulings as well as CoA judges

I erred in saying that they couldn't appreciate it without judicial experience, but I stand by my point that it's less likely. You're right that experienced appellate litigators (as well as those who have dealt with these issues from the government side) will have a solid understanding of their impact, but non-judges as a whole are less likely to understand the issues than are judges.

And, with that, I think we can at least dispense with ANY outrage at the nomination of Kagen. It is still reasonable to feel that they ought to have experience. But, any faux outraged people should be directed to Scalia's words.

You're assuming that any "outrage" over Kagan's nomination is entirely predicated on her lack of judicial experience.

hazlnut said:
Nice try.

I was obviously giving some factual context to the talking point of the day.

But you knew that...

And, you're incorrect, not all liberals and conservatives believe Earl Warren was a failure. Controversial. But, it's easy to claim you know better from the sidelines 3 decades after the fact.

And, I was talking about Black/Marshal--both 20th century--neither were judges.

And I was pointing out that your list was overwhelmingly weighted toward historical judges. Given the vast differences in the way politics and the courts worked in the past, such information is of little or no use in determining the common practice in today's era.

I don't need to "explain" Hugo Black or Thurgood Marshall, as I never claimed that one could not be a good SC Justice without prior judicial experience. However, it's worth noting that Black was appointed in the 1930's, and that Marshall (like Warren) is best remembered for things other than his decisions on the court. Marshall is one of my heroes, but it was his actions prior to taking his seat that earned him his place in history.
 
You're assuming that any "outrage" over Kagan's nomination is entirely predicated on her lack of judicial experience.

Ugh, so I seemed to mean, but I did misstate my thinking. I meant any outrage at her supposed lack of experience.
 
Ugh, so I seemed to mean, but I did misstate my thinking. I meant any outrage at her supposed lack of experience.

That's fair, though it also assumes that people must agree with Scalia on that point. :2razz:
 
RightinNYC said:
Second, yes, we're all aware that historically, most of the members of the Supreme Court were appointed directly out of political positions. That's because historically, most of the lower federal courts were considered to be unprestigious compared to political positions. As a result, the best legal minds went into politics.

Nowadays, that is not at all the case. Politics is quite unprestigious compared to legal positions, such as USA. SG, OLC, or Dist. Ct. Judge. As a result, most of the Justices in the modern era have come from the Art. III courts. Citing to Justices from the 1800s as proof that modern Justices should come from private practice is either disingenuous or uninformed.

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?
 
Last edited:
I didn't realize that fox news is the same as politics. I don't recall too many ugly people on ABC, CBS, NBC either. look at the ladies on the Today show-

same with the stars on "Friends"

NO doubt in my mind that Bush picked Roberts thinking he was the best available conservative legal mind. He got no political quota value for Roberts or Alito. He would have for Estrada and that is why the dems blocked Estrada

Nah. Bush clearly picked 'em because they were pretty.....

.
 
That's fair, though it also assumes that people must agree with Scalia on that point. :2razz:

Here, I must disagree. Whether you agree with him or not, he adds significant credibility, as a Supreme himself, as to what the qualifications ought to be. Even if you disagree with him, you would look like a fool if you were outraged, or wanted to ridicule Obama for Kagen's lack of 'experience', etc.

I mean, over here we have Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, approving of people who have different backgrounds that do not include Judicial experience being nominated to the Supreme Court. And over here, we have Mr. Feigned Outrage who can't believe what an idiot Obama is to have the audacity to nominate such an 'unqualified' candidate. It would just be such obvious overwrought foolishness.
 
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.
 
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.
Not surprising from MN. Y'all hired a wrestler for governor and an idiot comedian for senator. :doh

.
 
Not surprising from MN. Y'all hired a wrestler for governor and an idiot comedian for senator. :doh

.

And yet his statement was 100 % accurate. Managed to make his point much better than you did in fact.
 
Not surprising from MN. Y'all hired a wrestler for governor and an idiot comedian for senator. :doh

.

Do you have anything beyond STUPID, childish, personal insults to add or is that your entire act?
 
As a justice, one has to not only understand and uphold what the Constitution says (ie., Contitutional scholar) one has to know how decisions made at the SCOTUS level will be applied to the lower courts and ultimately to people.

It doesn't take much common sense to it out. 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, which I might add, should not be part of Constitutional argument. Right vs. Left has no business being applied to the Constitution. Those issues should be left to amendments passed by Congress and reviewed by the SCOTUS to make sure the laws / amendments are Constitutional.

And how you account for the list of SCOTUS justices that did not serve as judges prior to being appointed. Specifically, Black, Marshal.
It was a mistaken then, it's a mistake now.
 
As a justice, one has to not only understand and uphold what the Constitution says (ie., Contitutional scholar) one has to know how decisions made at the SCOTUS level will be applied to the lower courts and ultimately to people.

It doesn't take much common sense to it out. 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, which I might add, should not be part of Constitutional argument. Right vs. Left has no business being applied to the Constitution. Those issues should be left to amendments passed by Congress and reviewed by the SCOTUS to make sure the laws / amendments are Constitutional.

It was a mistaken then, it's a mistake now.

Justice Scalia disagrees with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom