• 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
Experienced yes. Must also have their field of expertise in Constitutional Law.
 
b.larset said:
Experienced yes. Must also have their field of expertise in Constitutional Law.
Click to expand...

Why? A huge portion of the court's docket has absolutely nothing to do with constitutional law.
 
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...
Damn, you guys are right on cue. I just saw Colbert tonight and this thread was up just 40 minutes later. :rofl
 
megaprogman said:
I think as long as they were in a job where they demonstrate that they understand the law and its application, they are qualified. If someone is the government's top representative at the SC, that's good enough I think.

Frankly, I am more disturbed by the fact that she looks like a man in drag.
elena-kagan1.jpg
Click to expand...
Looks like James Gandolfini with makeup.
 
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...

I don't think I said that. Can you point it out to me?
 
Dezaad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Still irrelevant. Please ask Judge Scalia to post a reply to this thread then. Another reason why it's irrelevant... you being convinced or not by any opinion is of no interest to me. I'm simply trying to convey the basis of my opinion, not an attempt to convince you my opinion is correct or not. I can't fix stupid even for Scalia. :shrug:


Dezaad said:
Again? Scalia says the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
Still irrelevant.


Dezaad said:
You've made no reasonable or substantiated argument to support your position to begin with. Just stated your opinion, really.
Click to expand...

Glad you finally read and understood. Mission accomplished.


Dezaad said:
I addressed this elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Since we are "here" and not "elsewhere" you should have addressed it "here". :roll:

Dezaad said:
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?
Click to expand...
Scalia's opinion is irrelevant. Perhaps you'll soon understand my view on that. I rarely infer... I'm point blank stating that the White House is injecting emotional evaluation and mediation --- and NOT legal experience into the Constitution. Yes. Affirmative. You can take that as an "inference".

Dezaad said:
Is it possible that this conservative justice is just indicating that he thinks there needs to be experience from diverse backgrounds?
Click to expand...
Dunno. Ask him and let me know when he reply's back. Such diversity doesn't belong on the SCOTUS bench.

Dezaad said:
Maybe because that brings wisdom to a conclave?
Click to expand...
Then Obama should appoint some janitor from Ada Oklahoma who uses common sense.

Dezaad said:
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.
Click to expand...
He the leader of the conservative judicial movement? Where can I see their platform? Are there meetings and yearly dues? I don't recognize nor accept your assertion of some judicial conservative movement obviously.

Dezaad said:
Aren't you curious, a little bit, about the basis of his opinion on this matter? A little?
Click to expand...
Nope. I like my SCOTUS all law, all experience, all Constitution. If I want some emotional sob session I'll turn on Cable talk shows.
 
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...

Agreed. But you know, that describes most of the people on the Supreme Court. Rarely do we get the best legal minds in there.

Just like all of government. The people who would be best running things either don't get elected or never run. Our system of government is based on who can win elections and gain approval of the Senate and not on who is the most qualified.

Hey, you know, if Republicans wanted more of a trail on Kagan, maybe they should have not voted her down when Clinton nominated her to the federal bench.
 
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...

The average age is 53 for appointments. Kagan is 50.

Roberts was only 50 when he became Chief Justice.

Here are the other justices and their age at appointment:

Thomas: 43
Scalia: 50
Kennedy: 52
Alito: 55
Sotomayer: 55
Breyer: 56
Ginsburg: 60

If Obama is using a "dangerous strategy" then so has every other recent President.
 
Ockham said:
I don't think I said that. Can you point it out to me?
Click to expand...

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, 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.
Click to expand...

My question is how does that conclusion ("It was a mistake then, it's a mistake now") follow from the premise ("History has shown others with no bench experience have fulfilled the position of justice well")? Why was/is it a mistake if those justices are still able to do a good job?
 
Groucho said:
Agreed. But you know, that describes most of the people on the Supreme Court. Rarely do we get the best legal minds in there.

Just like all of government. The people who would be best running things either don't get elected or never run. Our system of government is based on who can win elections and gain approval of the Senate and not on who is the most qualified.

Hey, you know, if Republicans wanted more of a trail on Kagan, maybe they should have not voted her down when Clinton nominated her to the federal bench.
Click to expand...

Wasn't aware she was ever voted on back then. Thought the nomination just sort of died on the vine.....



.
 
Kandahar said:
My question is how does that conclusion ("It was a mistake then, it's a mistake now") follow from the premise ("History has shown others with no bench experience have fulfilled the position of justice well")? Why was/is it a mistake if those justices are still able to do a good job?
Click to expand...

Ah - I see it now. Notice that I still said I didn't agree with it. The reason I can reconcile the two is I reject the premise that because it worked in the past means it will automatically work in the future. Granted, history is the best predictor, I'd suggest the lack of such a historical move in the past 40 years was for a reason.

It was a mistaken then and now because these are different people. I don't know if she will do a good job - she may or may not. I could put a janitor in that position and he/she may do well, or not. Does that mean I'd want to put a janitor as a SCOTUS justice? Of course not.

And I think without reviewing each and every prior justice who had not experience in depth, it would probably be a mistake to simply agree similar appointments were done well. I actually don't know that for a fact and that was my mistake for agreeing. I think I did that to dismiss it. My apologies.
 
RightinNYC said:
Since forever? Much of the court's docket deals with arguments over statutory interpretation, not constitutional law.

Johnson v. United States - ScotusWiki
Bloate v. United States - ScotusWiki
Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers - ScotusWiki
Perdue v. Kenny A. - ScotusWiki.
Jones v. Harris Associates - ScotusWiki

More than 1/3 of the first month's cases last term were entirely based on statutes.
Click to expand...

yes, I agree -- 1/3.

You said "a huge portion".

I guess I just don't consider 33% a "huge portion". I interpreted your comment to mean a vast majority.
 
Groucho said:
yes, I agree -- 1/3.

You said "a huge portion".

I guess I just don't consider 33% a "huge portion". I interpreted your comment to mean a vast majority.
Click to expand...

If I had intended to say majority, I would have said that instead of portion.

It was 1/3 in that particular month, not across the board. In fact, although the numbers are a bit dated, one study concluded that only 44% of cases on the court's docket primarily involved issues of Constitutional law.

More recently, Linda Greenhouse had this to say:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/us/28scotus.html

More than half the cases the court agrees to hear are not constitutional, but statutory, presenting questions much like the one posed by Hackworth v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, No. 06-1300. To whom does a statute apply? Precisely what behavior does it prohibit? How does it fit with another law on the books that seems to suggest something quite different?

...

The 73 cases the court selected for argument during the current term included 41 statutory cases, 27 that raised chiefly constitutional issues and 5 other kinds that raised issues of retroactivity and jurisdiction. (These calculations are subject to interpretation; at the margins, the categories can easily overlap, as when the court is asked to interpret a statute in such a way as to avoid a potential constitutional problem.)
Click to expand...

So yes, I think "huge portion" was entirely appropriate.
 
Perhaps if this bozo, Kagan, had been a judge at some point, she probably wouldn't have tried to punish the military and military recruiters for Clinton's policy on don't ask don't tell by attempting to ban them from the Harvard campus. The military has very little influence on policies like these which are imposed by the political establishment. She should have banned Clinton! If she'd have been a judge maybe she would be able to identify the perpetrator.
 
LowRevs said:
Perhaps if this bozo, Kagan, had been a judge at some point, she probably wouldn't have tried to punish the military and military recruiters for Clinton's policy on don't ask don't tell by attempting to ban them from the Harvard campus. The military has very little influence on policies like these which are imposed by the political establishment. She should have banned Clinton! If she'd have been a judge maybe she would be able to identify the perpetrator.
Click to expand...

How can you call that punishing? Now, a weapon of mass destruction, that's punishing.:roll:
 
I am against Kagan because she is catholic. If she is confirmed we will have 6 catholic supremes. This scares me.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I am against Kagan because she is catholic. If she is confirmed we will have 6 catholic supremes. This scares me.
Click to expand...

If you're going to oppose someone based on entirely irrational religious bigotry, at least try to get the religion right. She's Jewish, not Catholic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom