3 ms·
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 pr
by 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 agoThat 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...