Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: How important is judicial expereience for a future appointment to the US Supreme Court?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Viking Prince's Avatar Horrible(ly cute)
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    18,577

    Default How important is judicial expereience for a future appointment to the US Supreme Court?

    The appoinments will be coming. Two or three in the first term. Pres. Obama has been elected with limited legal and political experience to the presidency.

    Will he thus be more likely to weigh experiences other than judicial to make his appointments?

    Should he give less weight to judicial experience?

    Judge Roberts speech on the topic of judicial experience:
    Click here to view the lecture

    NY Times commentary on Judge Roberts speech
    (Roberts Sets Off Debate on Judicial Experience By ADAM LIPTAK):

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    For the first time in its history, every member of the United States Supreme Court is a former federal appeals court judge. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a lively and surprising talk a couple of weeks ago, said that development might be a good thing.

    Over the life of the Supreme Court, its members were quite likely to be former governors, legislators, cabinet members, law professors and practicing lawyers. That mix of backgrounds and expertise might strike some as valuable, but the chief justice suggested that it tended to inject policy and politics into an area properly reserved for the law.

    As late as 1972, when Chief Justice Roberts’s predecessor, William H. Rehnquist, joined the court as an associate justice, former federal judges were in the minority.

    As a consequence, Chief Justice Roberts said, “the practice of constitutional law — how constitutional law was made — was more fluid and wide ranging than it is today, more in the realm of political science.”
    Since then, Chief Justice Roberts continued, “the method of analysis and argument shifted to the more solid grounds of legal arguments. What are the texts of the statutes involved? What precedents control?”

    That move, he said, has resulted in “a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective.”

    Chief Justice Roberts spoke at the University of Arizona’s law school on Feb 4. The next day, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer. Justice Ginsburg plans to return to the court next Monday, but should there be an opening on the court in the near future, the chief justice’s musings about the proper background for his colleagues will carry weight.

    If President Obama makes a selection for the court, he will confront what law professors have started to call “the norm of prior judicial experience,” and he may find it hard to resist.

    But there are reasons to question the chief justice’s conclusions.
    The political scientists who study such things say there is no empirical support for the notion that former judges are more apt to feel constrained by earlier rulings or to suppress their political views. “Former appellate court judges are no more likely to follow precedent or to put aside their policy preferences than are justices lacking judicial experience,” according to a study to be published soon in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

    If Chief Justice Roberts was implying that the court became less political as the number of former judges on it rose, said Lee Epstein, who teaches law and political science at Northwestern and is one of the authors of the study, “the data don’t support it.”

    And not everyone supports the idea that members of the court should have uniform backgrounds. The psychological literature demonstrates that “the more homogenous the group, the worse the quality of the decisions they make,” said Tracey E. George, a law professor at Vanderbilt and the author of a law review article about the consequences of promoting former judges to the Supreme Court.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was a Justice Department official before he joined the court and was the last justice without a judicial background, was also wary of having only former judges on the court.

    “It would too much resemble the judiciary in civil law countries,” he wrote in 2001, referring to legal systems in which being a judge is a lifelong civil service career. “Reasonable people, not merely here but in Europe, think that many civil law judicial systems simply do not command the respect and enjoy the independence of ours.”

    The trend toward looking mostly to the lower federal courts for Supreme Court justices started in the 1950s and was apparently prompted in part by complaints from Southern members of Congress after Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision barring segregation in public schools.

    The court that decided Brown included Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former governor of California; Hugo L. Black, a former United States senator; Felix Frankfurter, a former law professor; William O. Douglas, who had served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Robert H. Jackson, who had been the attorney general.

    The Southern lawmakers, according to John R. Schmidhauser’s 1959 study of the court’s justices, urged President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint former judges who could be trusted to base decisions “upon ‘law,’ not ‘sociology.’ ”

    Before Eisenhower’s presidency, about a third of the nominations to the Supreme Court went to sitting judges. Since 1953, more than two-thirds have.

    Justice Frankfurter, writing in 1957, had a blunt assessment of this phenomenon. “The correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the functions of the Supreme Court,” he said, “is zero.”

    Chief Justice Roberts, in his remarks in Arizona, said his court was “very diverse in terms of the experiences people bring.” Justices Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Antonin Scalia all taught law before becoming judges. Justice David H. Souter was New Hampshire’s attorney general. The chief justice and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and John Paul Stevens all had substantial careers in private practice.

    On the other hand, “over the entire course of the court’s history, all but two justices, Breyer and Ginsburg, worked at one time or another in private practice,” according to a 2003 study in the California Law Review. Since then, the court has added a third such member in Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

    Chief Justice Roberts did say that the current justices’ limited trial court experience was “an unfortunate circumstance” and “a flaw.” Chief Justice Rehnquist tried to remedy that by once appointing himself to the trial bench in Virginia during a Supreme Court recess.

    “He heard a case and issued the opinion,” Chief Justice Roberts recalled, “and was promptly reversed by the Fourth Circuit.” He added, “Partly because of that, I can assure you that I am not going to appoint myself to the trial bench.”
    Grandson of Silver Guard, son of Maverick, and father to Mr MM|Rebel6666|Beer Money |bastard stepfather to Ferrets54
    The Scriptorium is looking for great articles. Don't be bashful, we can help with the formatting and punctuation. I am only a pm away to you becoming a published author within the best archive of articles around.
    Post a challenge and start a debate
    Garb's Fight Club - the Challenge thread






    .


    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere View Post
    Weighing into threads with the steel capped boots on just because you disagree with my viewpoints, is just embarrassing.

















    Quote Originally Posted by Hagar_the_Horrible
    As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought for the other fellow. He could be plotting something.


  2. #2
    seal's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Fort Polk, LA
    Posts
    450

    Default Re: How important is judicial expereience for a future appointment to the US Supreme Court?

    That's really interesting. Initially, I assumed judicial experience should be paramount in Supreme Court selections. The rebuttal article by the Times brought up some good points. I'm not sure anymore.

  3. #3
    Kiljan Arslan's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    The Place of Mayo in Minnesota
    Posts
    20,672

    Default Re: How important is judicial expereience for a future appointment to the US Supreme Court?

    I think the most inportant is geeting moderates on the court so to keep the scales even and not let either side have to much of an advantage.
    according to exarch I am like
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Exarch View Post
    sure, the way fred phelps finds christianity too optimistic?

    Simple truths
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Did you know being born into wealth or marrying into wealth really shows you never did anything to earn it?
    btw having a sig telling people not to report you is hilarious.

  4. #4
    Bovril's Avatar Primicerius
    Civitate Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,017

    Default Re: How important is judicial expereience for a future appointment to the US Supreme Court?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking Prince View Post
    Pres. Obama has been elected with limited legal and political experience to the presidency.
    ?
    Obama is one of the most legally qualified presidents ever. He taught constiutional law for 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School. How much more qualified do you want?

    If you mean he has a lack of legislative experience, then you'd have more of a point, but he's still served 11 years in state and national legislatures, so it wouldn't be a very good one.

  5. #5
    Viking Prince's Avatar Horrible(ly cute)
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    18,577

    Default Re: How important is judicial expereience for a future appointment to the US Supreme Court?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bovril View Post
    ?
    Obama is one of the most legally qualified presidents ever. He taught constiutional law for 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School. How much more qualified do you want?

    If you mean he has a lack of legislative experience, then you'd have more of a point, but he's still served 11 years in state and national legislatures, so it wouldn't be a very good one.
    He has absolutely no judicial experience, little trial experience, and very little client case experience. I am not faulting his teaching experience, but this is not the same as doing the actual tasks.

    His political experience is limited. No executive political experience, little legislative experience at the federal level, and little actual legislative law writing experience.

    With his experience that he has -- what is he going to demand of his judicial appointments? Is he going to assume that since he has risen to the President with a thinner resume and feels qualified for the job -- that US Supreme Court appointments can also come from academic positions, State judicial positions, State governors, etc.

    This is not a criticsm of the man. It is simply a question of who he will consider for the appointments and whether this is better than a focus on federal bench appeals experience.

    My personal view is that the recent history since WWII has been too narrow of a focus on promotion from within the guild so to speak. I have nobody in mind, but certainly there are academics that are qualified. Certainly there are state governors who are qualified. The legislative branch is filled with lawyers experienced in writing the law -- certainly some are qualified to be high court appointments.

    The reason the focus has been so narrow is to minimize the criticism from political opponants. If a sitting state governor is named, this is clearly a political decision and will be attacked politically. A US Appeals Judge has written and spoken very little on political questions. This makes such an appointment "safer" than the state governor.
    Grandson of Silver Guard, son of Maverick, and father to Mr MM|Rebel6666|Beer Money |bastard stepfather to Ferrets54
    The Scriptorium is looking for great articles. Don't be bashful, we can help with the formatting and punctuation. I am only a pm away to you becoming a published author within the best archive of articles around.
    Post a challenge and start a debate
    Garb's Fight Club - the Challenge thread






    .


    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere View Post
    Weighing into threads with the steel capped boots on just because you disagree with my viewpoints, is just embarrassing.

















    Quote Originally Posted by Hagar_the_Horrible
    As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought for the other fellow. He could be plotting something.


  6. #6
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,219

    Default Re: How important is judicial expereience for a future appointment to the US Supreme Court?

    I'd Imagine it be of the same importance as Military experience for someone posing a chance to be one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •