• 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

Josie

*probably reading smut*
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
57,295
Reaction score
31,720
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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?
 
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?

As long as they are qualified? No.
 
I would be well more comfortable if they did. There are plenty of qualified judges in the country; I don't think you need to find a qualified yet inexperienced candidate.
 
I would be well more comfortable if they did. There are plenty of qualified judges in the country; I don't think you need to find a qualified yet inexperienced candidate.

Worked alright for Rehnquist as the article says.
 
Worked alright for Rehnquist as the article says.

Nothing says it can't work out. I'm just saying I think it's better to take qualified and experienced as opposed to qualified and inexperienced; especially when considering a spot for one of the top judges in the land.
 
Appoint someone without position experience to the highest position in the land? Uh, no.

I don't think it would be feasible for a business grad to apply for a CEO position in a Fortune 500 company.
 
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
 
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

Either you are just teasing.....or you may soon be hearing some stunning news!!


.
 
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

Oh, I thought "she" was a man in drag. She is really a she - by birth?
 
Meh, I don't see a problem with appointing non-judges. Frankly I think it's a good thing to have some justices with diverse backgrounds. As long as she's familiar with the law, I don't see why it really matters.

As for whether "experience" (defined by number of years being a judge) is important...I'd be surprised if it really changed anything. Go read some Supreme Court opinions, and see if you can discern which were written by justices with no previous judicial experience. My hunch is no.
 
I think they definitely should. It establishes a record of their rulings, for one thing.
 
I think as long as the candidate is qualified for the position (and I believe she is) then it doesn't matter if they've been a judge before.
 
I'm sure the lady is smart and could do a good job, but I'd much prefer a candidate with some kind of judicial experience. I know that this isn't the first time that this has happened and I'm not going to lose any sleep at night over it, because she has a good history regardless, but some kind of judicial experience seems like it should be somewhat of a prerequisite for sitting on the supreme court.
 
I think it's certainly a plus, but it's not an absolute necessity. For candidates without judicial experience, they should have had fairly substantial experience practicing law or in some government legal function. Kagan satisfies that requirement.

Kagan was probably my least favorite out of the "finalists," but she's not that bad.
 
Last edited:
Do you think Supreme Court Justices should have experience being a judge before being appointed as a Supreme Judge for life?
Seems to me that while someone might have a PhD in military history, you'd not comission him directly as a 4-star to the JCS.
 
Seems to me that while someone might have a PhD in military history, you'd not comission him directly as a 4-star to the JCS.

But if they had experience in the military and it's operations, this would make a difference.
 
But if they had experience in the military and it's operations, this would make a difference.
It might, yes.
How is that relevant here?
 
It might, yes.
How is that relevant here?

Well if the women Obama nominated has loads of experience in law, why would she need to have been a judge? Or any nominee?

Don't get me wrong I don't want another liberal judge, but her nomination looks like a good one from a liberal or progressive perspective.
 
Well if the women Obama nominated has loads of experience in law, why would she need to have been a judge? Or any nominee?
Same reason you should have some military experience before becoming a general -- theory and practice are different things.
 
Same reason you should have some military experience before becoming a general -- theory and practice are different things.

In the military, that's true. In the courtroom, I'm less sure of that. Theory and practice are quite similar.

Generally speaking, Supreme Court decisions tend to be quite theoretical in nature. While the justices may be concerned with the practical ramifications of their decision, I don't see any reason that someone who had formerly served as a judge would have better insight into those practical ramifications than someone who had formerly served as a legal scholar would.
 
Same reason you should have some military experience before becoming a general -- theory and practice are different things.

You don't think a lawyer practicing law for 20 years has enough experience to be a judge?
 
You don't think a lawyer practicing law for 20 years has enough experience to be a judge?

No, not with the info you provided.

What kind of law?
Where was it practiced?
What cases were filed and which one's were won? Why were they won?
What positions were taken in those cases?
What publications has this lawyer made?

Just because I worked for 20 years as a middle-manager in a company doesn't mean I can run it as the CEO.
 
You don't think a lawyer practicing law for 20 years has enough experience to be a judge?
-A- judge? As in like -a judge of some kind-?
Sure. Just like a PhD in military history has enough to be -an- officer.

But, we arent talling about being -a- judge.
 
You don't think a lawyer practicing law for 20 years has enough experience to be a judge?

Being a law prof/dean =/= practicing law. If we're still talking about Kagan, she's had about 8 or 9 years of actual legal practice.
 
What are y'all talking about? Experience is not necessary for high government positions in the USA. Just look at the qualifications of the guy you elected to the highest position in your country. :doh

.
 
Back
Top Bottom