Kegan gets conformed by full Senate.

[hal2kilo]

My point is that some people think it should, and rattling off the names of other judges that have been on the SCOTUS without having been on the bench previously does nothing to refute that idea.

Pray tell, enlighten us as to how those Justices on CallmeJoe's list were lacking due their not having judicial bench experience since its so irrefutable.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

My point is that some people think it should, and rattling off the names of other judges that have been on the SCOTUS without having been on the bench previously does nothing to refute that idea.

Actually it does. I realize that you may be arguing the validity of other people's viewpoints, but still....if one subscribes to the notion that a SC justice *should* have judicial experience, that's a matter of opinion with no clear-cut answer.

But it's perfectly fair for people who disagree with that notion to point out that there *have* been prior SC justices who have in fact sat on the Court.

What makes the example(s) valid?

- It shows that prior judicial experience was NOT always a pre-requisite to get on SCOTUS. Indeed, there have been SCOTUS justices who had never gone to law school....although granted that's an extreme example that would probably not occur now given present law's complexity.

- the notion of prior judicial experience assumes that a SCOTUS justice's competence or greatness has a strong if not significant bearing on whether or not they have sat behind a bench and heard cases, as well as made rulings. pointing out that John Marshall, or William Rehnquist lacked such experience supports the argument that judicial experience is no bar to being a competent if not great SCOTUS justice, although it's fair to argue whether they're the exception that proves the rule.

 

[CallMeJoe]

My point is that some people think it should, and rattling off the names of other judges that have been on the SCOTUS without having been on the bench previously does nothing to refute that idea.

If I had merely posted the names of random Justices who had no prior judicial experience, I would cede your point. Reread the list; these are amongst the greatest Justices to sit on the Court. Based on this sampling, one could legitimately argue that lack of prior judicial experience might actually be an advantage to a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Craig234]

John Marshall not enough?

John Rutledge
John Jay
Charles Evans Hughes
Louis Brandeis
Felix Frankfurter
Harlan Stone
William O. Douglas
Earl Warren
Abe Fortas
William Rehnquist

A damned distinguished list of "unqualified" Justices. There were a lot more...

I'd take Abe Fortas off the list of 'distinguished'.