Should a Supreme Court nominee have judicial experience to be on the high court? What are your thoughts?

A Supreme should have more experience than just being a top attorney at a top tier Texas law firm with all the right connections. Seriously, I know JP's who would be better candidates for the Supreme Court than Harriett Miers.

Just doing a little research, I learned that something like 39 justices had no prior judicial experience, including the late CJ. Not fatal, then, but difficult to evaluate before they take the bench.

I think it's good to have some non-ivory-tower types on the Court, as long as they remain in the minority.

Interesting.
Some might say that a bar assoc president is the iconic ivory-tower-type.

I think it would be helpful if a supreme court member had trial court experience, or just trial experience, then he would have a better idea how opinions are used in the court room. I don't think any of the justices have very much, if any, trial experience.

Apparently CJ Rhenquist agreed with that thought. One year, during the summer recess, he tried to sit as a district judge to hear cases. (He had no real courtroom experience, as I remember) As I recall, it proved to be such a zoo, that he gave it up.

However, the Supremes decide all kinds of questions that have nothing to do with trial work.

I think everyone who has responded to this post thus far is much less of an "Ivory Tower Type" than Ms. Miers. But you don't see any of us on the short list, do you?

Well, Greg, I wasn't really allowed to tell anyone . . .

I think that there are far better qualified candidates out there and that the White House is just playing the ultimate game of "Hide the Ball". You know the confirmation hearings will all be 'How do you feel about this or that' and her responses will be nothing but I can't tell you anything. No record, no answers.... that's not what the founding fathers intended.

I think that's exactly what the founding fathers intended... or rather, what they DIDN'T intend is what we have now: day after day of trying to nail a judicial candidate down as to exactly how he would vote on this issue, or that... followed by accusations of dishonesty if any answer doesn't seem to coincide with some 30-year-old paper written while the candidate was clerking for someone else.

The candidate's qualifications should be all that matters. Beyond that, we should just assume that liberals will nominate liberal jurists and conservatives will nominate conservative ones. That's the prerogative of the executive. Let's learn to cope with that and move on.

Miers has a lot of trial experience ... none of it in criminal law if that's what you meant ... but she is a top civil trial litigator.

She has experience on the Dallas City Council, head of the Texas Lottery Commission, and White House Counsel. Not exactly the resume you expect to see for a Supreme nominee. Common sense dictates that.

Newell would be a far better selection as a nominee than Miers.

Thanks for the compliment greg, but when bush offered me the position, I had to decline. Sure, I love appellate law, but my resume is devoid of any Texas Lottery Commission experience. Indeed, unlike Miers, I've never even had to fire anyone unjustly for purely political reasons. Besides, I said, I'm unwilling to undergo a sex-change operation, even if it would get me a seat on the Supreme Court. You have to draw the line somewhere.

No Problem, David. And besides, with the wonderful job that Miers did with the Texas Lottery Commission, who could blame Bush for wanting to put her on the high court?

"undergo a sex-change operation." That's classic stuff, David.

Geez, I guess I better clarify my earlier post ... I meant the ivory tower of the appellate courts and law schools, where the residents have drawn nothing but government paychecks their entire adult lives. Not that there is anything wrong with that type of life -- I'm just arguing for some diversity. You could even argue that we don't have enough ivory-tower types on our own Supreme Court due to their status as elected officials, I suppose. ...

--------------------------
(from Dictionary.com)
1. ivory tower n.
A place or attitude of retreat, especially preoccupation with lofty, remote, or intellectual considerations rather than practical everyday life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Translation of French tour d'ivoire : tour, tower + de, of + ivoire, ivory.]

Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


2. ivory tower

A place or attitude of retreat, remoteness from everyday affairs, as in What does the professor know about student life, living as he does in an ivory tower? This term is a translation of the French tour d'ivoire, which the critic Saint-Beuve used to describe the attitude of poet Alfred de Vigny in 1837. It is used most often in reference to intellectuals and artists who remain complacently aloof.

Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.

Shannon, I think that being a top partner in one of the Nation's larger lawfirms does not equal being a practicing lawyer but being a rainmaker = Ivory tower.

C'mon, Shannon, give us some inside "scoop" on Harriet Miers! Surely you still have a few administration "contacts." My abiding hope is that given the longstanding relationship Ms. Miers has had with the President, surely they've discussed all of the various "hot" constitutional issues of the day and he's satisfied that she's of the Scalia/Thomas mold. Reckon she'll be relying on French law in her death penalty jurisprudence?

I think the main problem, Shannon, is not necessarily how ivory-colored her tower is, but rather, how can someone joined at the hip with organizations like the ABA and State Bar ever going to do us any favors in the criminal justice system.