CNN Poll: Should S.C. justices have previous experience on the bench?

Yes: 78%, 142595 votes

No: 22%, 40091 votes

Total: 182686 votes

http://www.cnn.com/

It would be judicious!

is no requirement in the constitution that they even be a lawyer.

180

Soon dogs and cats sleeping together ...

There were many appointments of people who had no experience as a judge:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4962668&mesg_id=4962668

But that's mainly because you had to be a crown loyalist to get a judicial appointment in the colonies. We ran out of those shortly after the revolution.

Still, I hear what you're saying. Judicial experience is not an absolute requirement, but it certainly helps. Given the choice, I'd prefer a candidate who had judicial experience over one who did not. Wouldn't you?

-Laelth

I don't think it is necessary for a SCOTUS justice to have judicial experience. FDR, Truman, and JFK all nominated very good justices who had no such experience:
FDR: William O Douglas
Truman: Tom Clark
JFK: Byron White, Arthur Goldberg
LBJ: Abe Fortas

Even Eisenhower and Nixon nominated non-judges:
Earl Warren and Lewis Powell

So the idea that appointing non-judges died out shortly after the revolution is simply wrong.

onenote

they were not non-lawyers.

Thanks for catching that. Just a brain fart.

onenote

and your point was well taken.

Do you think Supreme Court justices should have previous experience on the bench?

Yes 78% 149315 votes
No 22% 42137 votes
Total: 191452 votes

-Laelth

any of should be able to interpret the Constitution, whether we are lawyers or not. There's no requirement for it.

I'm more disturbed by the naked and shameless cronyism.

...did Carter/Clinton admins have appointments, if so, who ? Carefull what you wish for guys, I do believe there's a history of such appointments. My concern is cronyism right now :banghead:

Appellate Judges at the Federal level.

Probably not a good time for Bush to appoint a crony though? Glad Bill honored those hard working appellate fed judges in his appointments.

JFK appointed Byron White who had run JFK's campaign in Colorado
LBJ appointed Abe Fortas, who represented LBJ (and became a close friend) back in the 1940s
Hell, even Felix Frankfurter was an advisor to FDR before he was appointed.

onenote

real early on it was 92 to 8.

... an accurate appraisal of the remaining solidarity of Bush's base.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--clarity.

but also probably has paid poll takers running from Internet cafe to Internet cafe so as to not leave tracks. I know they could delete cookies, but that could be traced, I would think.

Did Thurgood Marshall have judicial experience prior to the Supreme Court? I remember hearing that he was an NAACP lawyer who argued or worked on Brown v. Board of Education. Was he still at the NAACP when LBJ appointed him to SCOTUS?

Earl Warren, the celebrated liberal Chief Justice, was a Republican governor of California and Thomas Dewey's running mate against Truman in '48. He panned out rather well. Don't think he had much if any judicial experience.

The issue of who will appoint people to the federal bench is always very much on MY mind during presidential elections. If WE want better nominees, WE"VE got to get a Democrat into the White House.

Until then, I think we could have gotten much worse nominees than these two. The right wingers are already moaning that they haven't gotten the Scalia/Thomas clones that they think they deserve. Like some Democratic Senators, I am hopeful that John Roberts and Harriet Miers will turn out OK when they take note that the Constitution actually begins with the words "We, the people" not "We, the corporations" or "We, the money" I think that that's why the justices appointed by Republicans turn "liberal." They tune into the responsibility to the people and away from the money and the special interests. Scalia and Thomas appear to be anomalies....so far. (It also seems that Bush's political capital is running as much of a deficit as his fiscal policy, so he didn't have the stones to appoint more Scalias.)

In any case, until we get a Democratic president, all we have are hopes and wishful thinking.

Judges simply pick and choose between a number of presidents, previously encoded into current law.

If conservative they will favor Conservative precedents:if liberal a liberal precedent. Their minds are made up before the case begins. Each side presenting their case only have a few minutes, not hours, to present their arguments.

Not that their arguments make any difference. The Supreme Court is obliged to create an illusion for the public. Perhaps, that's the real reason they don't want cameras in their court.

The S C Justices should be required include the total cost it cost each party, to have their case adjudicated, with their each opinion.

Why the cost alone would convince and reasonably minded person the whole process is a sham.