3 ms·

Even to the Supreme court I thought the President could nominate anyone irrespective of their qualifications, no prior experience as a lawyer or a judge is mand

Even to the Supreme court I thought the President could nominate anyone irrespective of their qualifications, no prior experience as a lawyer or a judge is mandated.

jMyles 7y ago
You are correct. In every case so far, SCOTUS Justices have been attorneys by profession, but as the internet makes it much easier to research law and legal precedents, it might be interesting to see what happens if someone with a different background joins that club.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  That is only true of living justices. A number of SCOTUS justices in the past had no legal backgrounds whatsoever, with the last such judge serving until 1957.
  - jMyles 7y ago
    > A number of SCOTUS justices in the past had no legal backgrounds whatsoever, with the last such judge serving until 1957. What you are saying is strictly, clearly incorrect. In fact, not only has every person who has served as a SCOTUS justice been an attorney, but every person nominated has been an attorney. [0] Stanley Forman Reed, to whom you are referring as the person who retired in 1957, attended but did not graduate from law school - perhaps that's the source of your confusion? In any case, Reed had a long, storied career as an attorney before being nominated to the Court. Again: every person for whom a nomination has been submitted by a POTUS to the Senate has been an practicing attorney, barred in one or more US States. There has not been a single exception. And certainly no nomination even approaching "no legal background whatsoever." 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_by_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_b...
StanislavPetrov 7y ago
The problem here is less the lack of experience but rather that many of these judges are routinely violating the law and the Constitution. We cannot have a functional legal system if judges do not follow the law.
- basementcat 7y ago
  Judges interpret the law. The law and Constitution are not written in C (and even if they were, we all know that every compiler has "undefined behavior" that may need to be adjudicated) and we occasionally need a court system to resolve disputes and clarify legal ambiguities. If the affected parties believe a judge made an incorrect decision, there exist procedures for appeal or even revisiting the question in a subsequent case. If judges in a jurisdiction are elected, it is the responsibility of the electorate to make sure the judges they select are the most qualified (perhaps by studying previous decisions, academic publications, etc). Analogously, if judges are appointed by other elected officials, it is the responsibility of the electorate to select public servants who are good at appointing competent judges.
  - gryfft 7y ago
    While your statement is technically correct, it does not address the issue.
  - watwut 7y ago
    > Judges interpret the law. That is possible only if you actually know the law. If you do not know it, you cant interpret it. So yes, people are needed to interpret the law, but not really anyone. Kinda like we need programmers, but not really anyone.
    - basementcat 7y ago
      It is possible for competent programmers to interpret a vaguely written specification in mutually incompatible ways.
      - 7y ago

Even to the Supreme court I thought the President could nominate anyone irrespective of their qualifications, no prior experience as a lawyer or a judge is mandated.

jMyles 7y ago

You are correct. In every case so far, SCOTUS Justices have been attorneys by profession, but as the internet makes it much easier to research law and legal precedents, it might be interesting to see what happens if someone with a different background joins that club.

gamblor956 7y ago
That is only true of living justices. A number of SCOTUS justices in the past had no legal backgrounds whatsoever, with the last such judge serving until 1957.
- jMyles 7y ago
  > A number of SCOTUS justices in the past had no legal backgrounds whatsoever, with the last such judge serving until 1957. What you are saying is strictly, clearly incorrect. In fact, not only has every person who has served as a SCOTUS justice been an attorney, but every person nominated has been an attorney. [0] Stanley Forman Reed, to whom you are referring as the person who retired in 1957, attended but did not graduate from law school - perhaps that's the source of your confusion? In any case, Reed had a long, storied career as an attorney before being nominated to the Court. Again: every person for whom a nomination has been submitted by a POTUS to the Senate has been an practicing attorney, barred in one or more US States. There has not been a single exception. And certainly no nomination even approaching "no legal background whatsoever." 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_by_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_b...

StanislavPetrov 7y ago

The problem here is less the lack of experience but rather that many of these judges are routinely violating the law and the Constitution. We cannot have a functional legal system if judges do not follow the law.

basementcat 7y ago
Judges interpret the law. The law and Constitution are not written in C (and even if they were, we all know that every compiler has "undefined behavior" that may need to be adjudicated) and we occasionally need a court system to resolve disputes and clarify legal ambiguities. If the affected parties believe a judge made an incorrect decision, there exist procedures for appeal or even revisiting the question in a subsequent case. If judges in a jurisdiction are elected, it is the responsibility of the electorate to make sure the judges they select are the most qualified (perhaps by studying previous decisions, academic publications, etc). Analogously, if judges are appointed by other elected officials, it is the responsibility of the electorate to select public servants who are good at appointing competent judges.
- gryfft 7y ago
  While your statement is technically correct, it does not address the issue.
- watwut 7y ago
  > Judges interpret the law. That is possible only if you actually know the law. If you do not know it, you cant interpret it. So yes, people are needed to interpret the law, but not really anyone. Kinda like we need programmers, but not really anyone.
  - basementcat 7y ago
    It is possible for competent programmers to interpret a vaguely written specification in mutually incompatible ways.
    - 7y ago