NationStates Jolt Archive

When someone mentioned in the recent thread about US Supreme Court Justice Souter retiring that US Supreme Court Justices don't have to have a law degree I thought that surely that couldn't be true.

But apparently they were indeed right, according to this editorial wistfully imagining a future Justice Al Gore: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2009/05/mr-justice-gore.html

[Gore's] perspective would fill some giant blind spots on the present Court, which is made up entirely of former federal appeals-court judges who have little or no political experience, have never been elected to anything, and have a strikingly narrow experience of life in general.

A law degree is probably a helpful credential, all other things being equal, for a trial judge or an appeals-court judge. But it is far from essential in a Justice of the Supreme Court. The heart of a Justice’s job is interpreting and applying the Constitution, and for that things like a knowledge of history (including Constitutional history), a feel for the workings of government, a strong moral sense, an ability to think and write clearly, and a temperamental affinity for the long view—all of which Gore has in spades—are much more important than a professional familiarity with the details of contract or case law.

Now, the closest contact I've had with actual law was in a Criminal Justice class in the US where we had to dissect landmark Supreme Court rulings on capital punishment in proper (as much as possible) law school fashion, language and formalities and all. It was a world of difference from what non-law-schooled people do when they talk about capital punishment, i.e. what we do here when we talk about the legality or illegality of whatever things come up here all the time. I just really can't imagine anyone serving as a judge, let alone justice, who doesn't actually know how jurisprudence works. Does the author of that piece have any idea what "interpreting and applying the Constitution" actually entails? If it were that easy there wouldn't be a Supreme Court.

I'm all for the application of common sense in law and I also do very much remember that I came away from my specific case-to-dissect with an extreme disenchantment with the US Supreme Court because of the blatantly illogical and biased ruling of the majority - but a court, let alone a Supreme Court, has to work on the basis of a myriad of often arcane laws (and precedents, in the US), not common sense. Obviously it's desirable that both converge as much as possible and obviously you want especially the Supreme Court to make sure that no cases are decided in ways that completely violate common sense, but they still need to base their rulings in the law, not in what new Justice X might say is "politically ill advised" or (if it was me) "just not fair!"

As often as I have grumbled about the US Supreme Court (or courts in general, really) because I would have preferred them to step up and say "Listen, this is stupid, we're not going to rule this way" instead of sticking what I thought was too close to the books, isn't that what courts are supposed to do? How is a court that deals not in law but in easy common sense solutions still a functioning and useful court?
And if it does deal in law, how could someone be a competent judge without actually knowing, you know, law?

Color me skeptical.

The Supreme Court is a special case. Ultimately, knowledge of the law would be less help here than knowledge of the constitution - ultimately, that is what the SCOTUS (and the SCOTUS alone) interprets.

As long as the person has sufficient idea of the law to make sense of written statutes, briefs, and other legal documents, I don't see that a Law Degree is ultimately a requirement. That said, choosing from among the best legal minds in the country is probably a good place to start when filling a vacancy.

Law degrees are a relatively new thing. And I think in most common law jurisdictions you still don't actually need one to be a lawyer (conversion courses, clerking, that type of stuff fills the gap). Certainly in NY you can be admitted to the state bar w/o a law degree.

I don't see the problem. There is far too much professional credentialism in the US.

As long as the person has sufficient idea of the law to make sense of written statutes, briefs, and other legal documents, I don't see that a Law Degree is ultimately a requirement.
But how do you get a sufficient enough idea without logging some serious hours studying law?

You and I would be able to make sense of written statutes, briefs and other legal documents once we get used to the legalese, but it would be a very basic sense only and we'd be right out of our depth again come next case.

Then I'd get help from my staff - who, in the case of Supreme Court Justices, are legal experts.

Anyway, once you "get used to the legal jargon" most of these documents actually become quite clear. Statutes, especially are usually quite comprehensible to the layman.

Seems pretty silly to me to have judges at that level who aren't at least grounded in the basics of interpretation and jurisprudence...

The Supreme Court is a special case. Ultimately, knowledge of the law would be less help here than knowledge of the constitution - ultimately, that is what the SCOTUS (and the SCOTUS alone) interprets.
From what I've been able to tell, those cases are full of references to precedents from god knows when, which entails that 1) you have to know about those precedents and 2) you have to be able to relate and apply obscure details of complicated 50-year-old cases to your current case in order to come to a ruling. Sure, it's all basically about the constitution, but it's not like that means all you have to do is know what the constitution says, otherwise nobody would need you in the first place.

But how do you get a sufficient enough idea without logging some serious hours studying law?

I doubt you get a good idea of the US Constitution and court precedent studying the minutia of state law. Plus, they each have a veritable army of support people.

Besides, I'm sure people like Scalia have law degrees, it doesn't make them good justices.

Then I'd get help from my staff - who, in the case of Supreme Court Justices, are legal experts.

Anyway, once you "get used to the legal jargon" most of these documents actually become quite clear. Statutes, especially are usually quite comprehensible to the layman.

*giggles*
Yeah, there's really no place for statutory interpretation...it's not like that's a large portion of law school education or anything.

And I just want to brag that I have just been admitted into McGill Law to get my bachelor of civil law *does a little dance*. I should decline though...apparently I could be a Supreme Court Justice anyway.

If Obama appoints Al gore or anyone else with out a law degree I will join the secessionist movement.

That being said considering Obama has a law degree this is not likely to happen.

More over the senate would gawk at such an appointment, considering they to are largely lawyers.

I could see the rulings from Al Gore. The burning of coal is unconstitutional !

I think Id be okay with Al Gore as a Justice...so, Im not seeing the problem, lol...

*giggles*
Yeah, there's really no place for statutory interpretation...it's not like that's a large portion of law school education or anything.

And I just want to brag that I have just been admitted into McGill Law to get my bachelor of civil law *does a little dance*. I should decline though...apparently I could be a Supreme Court Justice anyway.

Congratulations, Neesika!

I doubt you get a good idea of the US Constitution and court precedent studying the minutia of state law. Plus, they each have a veritable army of support people.
There's about three ends from which I want to reply to this one and I don't know how so I'll wait and let someone else go untangle it first.

Besides, I'm sure people like Scalia have law degrees, it doesn't make them good justices.
Good thing nobody said it does, then.

And I just want to brag that I have just been admitted into McGill Law to get my bachelor of civil law *does a little dance*. I should decline though...apparently I could be a Supreme Court Justice anyway.
Nice, congrats.

Besides, I'm sure people like Scalia have law degrees, it doesn't make them good justices.

Having a law degree doesn't automatically make someone a good judge, but it would help make someone who is potentially a good judge into a good judge.

I actually find it fairly frightening that someone with so much judicial authority wouldn't at least be familiar with the basics of statutory interpretation. It's one of the first things they start to teach you when you study law, and they carry on teaching it to varying levels for the rest of the time you study.

How is this any different from being a Senator or Representative without a law degree? They are making laws after all.

*giggles*
Yeah, there's really no place for statutory interpretation...it's not like that's a large portion of law school education or anything.

And I just want to brag that I have just been admitted into McGill Law to get my bachelor of civil law *does a little dance*. I should decline though...apparently I could be a Supreme Court Justice anyway.

Well done sin!

Congratulations, Neesika!

Nice, congrats.

Well done sin!


Danke, danke! Two more years of law school makes me want to cut off my ear, but right now I'll just be happy.

It is true, however, that Supreme Court clerks quite often write the opinions of the justices, so it is conceivable that a total n00b could 'work out'. It doesn't do much for the legitimacy of the court, however.

Danke, danke! Two more years of law school makes me want to cut off my ear, but right now I'll just be happy.

It is true, however, that Supreme Court clerks quite often write the opinions of the justices, so it is conceivable that a total n00b could 'work out'. It doesn't do much for the legitimacy of the court, however.

Meh, the people who care about its legitimacy have a tendancy to disagree with all its decisions anyway, lol...

But, anyway, Congrats! http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-dance_male.gif

How is this any different from being a Senator or Representative without a law degree? They are making laws after all.

Representatives and senators are not lifetime appointments, and they are not judging a laws constitutional or unconstitutional.

And if it does deal in law, how could someone be a competent judge without actually knowing, you know, law?

Color me skeptical.
Come on... All you need to be a justice on the USSC is to have a political agenda similar to those that do the nominating and be able to get a majority vote from the Senate.

What other criteria could there possibly be?

a law degree doesn't seem necessary for being a good sc justice. after all, fewer than half of them have had one. and it certainly isn't sufficient for being one - just look at scalia.

a law degree doesn't seem necessary for being a good sc justice. after all, fewer than half of them have had one. and it certainly isn't sufficient for being one - just look at scalia.

is/ought? It's probably better if they are. It's also probably better if someone with a PHD in biology does research into biological matter x, rather than someone with no academic background in the field, even though there does exist PHD biologists who believe in ID.

Representatives and senators are not lifetime appointments, and they are not judging a laws constitutional or unconstitutional.
However, after some time in service writing laws, you would think they'd tend to become familiar with it.

The question that suggesting Al Gore poses is whether you need a formal education or simply an informal education in constitutional law to be a Supreme Court justice. "Law school" per se (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi_Woodbury) is kinda new in the world, and not exactly necessary to make one a competent lawyer. I'd say it's not necessary, but at the same time, most of the people who are qualified by competence will probably have some variety of law degrees.

However, after some time in service writing laws, you would think they'd tend to become familiar with it.

The question that suggesting Al Gore poses is whether you need a formal education or simply an informal education in constitutional law to be a Supreme Court justice. "Law school" per se (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi_Woodbury) is kinda new in the world, and not exactly necessary to make one a competent lawyer. I'd say it's not necessary, but at the same time, most of the people who are qualified by competence will probably have some variety of law degrees.

Except the Scotus made while "learning" have to wait until a new case is brought before them to be over turned. The senate has 56 out of a 100 senators with law degrees (maybe last senate session its what yahoo). So the effects of a senator who is in error can be mitigated, by those who know how to write law.

The other side will also will appoint informally educated justices.
Also nothing scares me more then a conservative judge with no law degree. The concept of restraint in his rulings will be non existent, and those justices will simply give values rulings.

Hammurab, Jhahannam, Baldwin for Christ, Sgt Toomey, and Neo art all either have Jursis Doctorates or are in a Juris Doctorate program.



Proof they aren't really useful for anything.

Except the Scotus made while "learning" have to wait until a new case is brought before them to be over turned. The senate has 56 out of a 100 senators with law degrees (maybe last senate session its what yahoo). So the effects of a senator who is in error can be mitigated, by those who know how to write law.

The other side will also will appoint informally educated justices.
Also nothing scares me more then a conservative judge with no law degree. The concept of restraint in his rulings will be non existent, and those justices will simply give values rulings.

Thanks for tarring all conservatives as mindless morons...

Thanks for tarring all conservatives as mindless morons...

just the ones that say Bush would appoint.

is/ought? It's probably better if they are. It's also probably better if someone with a PHD in biology does research into biological matter x, rather than someone with no academic background in the field, even though there does exist PHD biologists who believe in ID.

well, yeah. but i'm not sure that law school is the best training for being a judge anyways. i'll admit it is a reasonable path, but it does not seem at all clear to me that it is the only plausible one. for example, i think i would rather have at least some people trained more in philosophy on the court, for much the same reason that law schools like accepting people with philosophy backgrounds.

of course, they would presumably have to have had significant experience in dealing with the legal system at some level, but that's just because experience matters and jumping straight into a position of massive power with life tenure (which we ought change sometime, btw) seems like a bad idea.

just the ones that say Bush would appoint.

I can live with that.

You know what the best preparation for any career is?

A degree in heating and air conditioning repair from DeepFry Online University and Novelty Newspaper Discount Supersite!

Also nothing scares me more then a conservative judge with no law degree. The concept of restraint in his rulings will be non existent, and those justices will simply give values rulings.

yeah, like scalia but worse

You know what the best preparation for any career is?

A degree in heating and air conditioning repair from DeepFry Online University and Novelty Newspaper Discount Supersite!

i looked into that once, but their admissions requirements were too demanding for me. i mean, honestly, four letters of recommendation!?

i looked into that once, but their admissions requirements were too demanding for me. i mean, honestly, four letters of recommendation!?

It might be interesting to see a Justice with a PhD in history or philosophy instead of a JD, but both would be inferior to somebody with an online BS in business administration from University of Phoenix.

yeah, like scalia but worse

I find a law degree to be a moderating tool in rulings.
A court that is more extreme might be fine when your side holds the reigns.
But, imagine when it invariable flips, having to live with unmoderated justices from the other side.
You could easily see things like scotus rulings on abortion flipping every generation.

The Supreme Court is a special case. Ultimately, knowledge of the law would be less help here than knowledge of the constitution - ultimately, that is what the SCOTUS (and the SCOTUS alone) interprets.


That's...not true at all, actually. Constitutional interpretation is in no way the sole purview of SCOTUS. Every court is empowered to interpret the constitution. SCOTUS may have the final say,b ut to say they alone interpret the constitution is woefully incorrect.

It is also incorrect to suggest that interpreting the constitution is all that SCOTUS does. SCOTUS, despite being big and important, is still, at its core, a federal appeals court. While many of the issues it faces are constitutional matters, and they have the option of choosing only those cases that interest them, they can still hear any type of case that any federal appeals court could hear, including interpreting federal law. They even can, and have in the past, heard cases entirely based on individual state law.

In fact, the notion that only SCOTUS can address constitutional issues becomes a bit nonsensical when you consider criminal litigation. Since the effect of a constitutional rights violation is typically pretty harsh, of the "bang the gavel, send him home, double jeopardy is a bitch, better luck next time" variety, criminal trials tend to support a "and the kitchen sink" style of litigation, in which you throw pretty much every allegation of constitutional impropriety out there, in the hopes that one will stick.

"Your honor, the government blatantly violated the rights of my client under the fourth fifth sixth and...what the hell, third amendments."

"They quartered soldiers in his house during peace time?"

"Sure why the hell not?"

"Your honor, the government blatantly violated the rights of my client under the fourth fifth sixth and...what the hell, third amendments."

"They quartered soldiers in his house during peace time?"

"Sure why the hell not?"

I could see that arguments if FBI agents stay in my house too long during a search warrant.

I could see that arguments if FBI agents stay in my house too long during a search warrant.

funny, but the 3rd is explicitly covering soldiers who are quartered there. Cops lingering doesn't cut it. It might make an argument for an unreasonable search though.

Congratulations, Neesika!

Yeah, really! Congrats!!! You will very soon have no life, but I bet someday you'll look back on it and say, ZOMG!!!1111!!!

funny, but the 3rd is explicitly covering soldiers who are quartered there. Cops lingering doesn't cut it. It might make an argument for an unreasonable search though.

Well your a good lawyer convince those judges the distinction between federal law enforcement under the Constitution is blurry and that clearly if federal agents existed at that time they would have included them under soldiers in the Constitution. More over they were playing video games on my computer and eating Cheetos on my couch, while I was in jail!!!

Well your a good lawyer convince those judges the distinction between federal law enforcement under the Constitution is blurry and that clearly if federal agents existed at that time they would have included them under soldiers in the Constitution.

looks like a plausible argument to me, given that police forces didn't really come into their own for some decades after the third amendment was written.

looks like a plausible argument to me, given that police forces didn't really come into their own for some decades after the third amendment was written.

Are we agreeing on something ???

Are we agreeing on something ???

bound to happen eventually

bound to happen eventually

I am scared....