6 ms·
While all justices have been attorneys, there is no constitutional requirement that a justice be an attorney, and not a doctor/scientist/business man. Since ju
by jerrya 15y ago
While all justices have been attorneys, there is no constitutional requirement that a justice be an attorney, and not a doctor/scientist/business man.
Since justices do rely on clerks, it's not clear to me that an accomplished anything other than a judge could not be brought up to speed on the law.
It is a shame that the justices seem to avoid each other and do not appear to work in a team. Imagine a team of justices that could rely on one being an MD, one being a civil engineer, one being an entrepreneur that could lead/organize tutorial sessions for the others.
Many of the current justices don't even have courtroom experience.
- einhverfr 15y agoI think it would be great if we had at least one non-lawyer on the Supreme Court. It would lead to opinions that more people could easily read. Alas, few people agree with me (and none of them in the legal profession, wonder why....)
- lotu 15y agoIt's because lawyers understand how very, very, very bad things can get when you put people without an intimate understanding of the functioning of the law in-charge of overseeing it. Using lawyers is just very bad.
- willyt 15y agoWhat do you mean by very very very bad? Could you give an example.
- einhverfr 15y agoI didn't say that even a majority should be non-lawyers. I meant there should be non-lawyers on the court. It's not unprecedented. But in terms of overseeing the law, are you saying non-lawyers should be ineligible to run for Congress?
- AutoCorrect 15y agoand there's the problem: if you have to have people that specialize in understanding the law, the law is too complex to be allowed to continue in that form. How can a 'normal' person abide by the law if they can't understand it?