Late Chief Justice William Rehnquist had not judicial experience prior to joining the Supreme Court, of which he was a member of until his death in 2005. Rehnquist's lack of time as judge is a unusual trait for a judicial nominee, certainly, but hardly unique. Plenty of excellent justices have been chosen who have no or minimal prior judicial experience- in fact, nearly a third of all past justices had never served as a judge before being nominated. Still, it is a helpful, even a desirable trait for a judicial nominee to have served as a judge previously. The true criticism presented by those who feel judicial experience is an important and accurate measure of a nominee is the lack of an attainable record for the nominee's rulings or potential rulings. In all truth, this information could be ascertained from questioning during the Senate confirmation hearing for any nominee, but a nominee's rulings on contentious political issues should not have any effect on their confirmation, except insofar as it demonstrates their devotion to the law.
The next day, Obama announced Elena Kagan, current Solicitor General and first female dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan, like Rehnquist, has no experience as a judge, though she has copious qualifications as an educator and as the primary legal advocate for the federal government. If Kagan is confirmed by the Senate, it will mark the first time three female justices (Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and, potentially, Kagan) will have served on the court at one time.
If a nominee is qualified, devoted to the law, and shows strong moral and decision-based qualities, judicial experience should be superflous. Many years of judicial experience does not necessarily lead to a good justice, and a good justice does not require previous time as a judge. A phenomenal justice differs from a poor nominee based on character, not on irrelevant past decisions.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment