Should Supreme Court Candidates Be Limited to Lawyers and Judges?
U.S. District Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor has emerged as a presumptive favorite to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, based on her resume and ethnicity. But lots of other names have been tossed about, including that of Al Gore, who is not even a lawyer. What do you think? Is a previous legal career an absolute prerequisite for a justice of the Supreme Court? Or are political experience and knowledge of the Constitution enough? Post your thoughts.
Reader Comments
What happened to our original concept of government?
The original intent of the Judiciary Branch of Government is simply to Interpret the law. Now how many of us remember this from 5th grade? We have 3 branches of government; the legislative Branch (Which is supposed to make the laws), the Executive branch (Which is supposed to enforce the laws) and the Judiciary Branch (Which is supposed to Interpret the laws). Every major law that has been made in the last 40 years has been made by the supreme court they are supposed to Interpret the law not create new laws to fit whatever political agenda they are being pressured to abide by (Be it Democratic or Republican, Conservative or Liberal) So if you ask me, by that definition, I think our next supreme court member should have a background in law, and I would prefer him to have been a judge at some point so that they have a working knowledge of the law and not some lawyer who has spent years looking for ways around the law, looking for loopholes to get the guilty freed of any charges.
Experience
Experience and knowledge of the US Constitution should be weighed heavily in favor of a candidate to be named a justice for the Supreme Court. Politicians deal with overlapping issues daily and should be considered even if their educational background doesn't include law school.
advertisement
