Opinions to the Editor
The TPJ wants to hear from you! The Publications Committee will poll members concerning their thoughts on some of the “hot topics” of the day. During each quarter, the Committee will draft a question, which will be distributed to membership, through the Directors. Each question will direct you as to where to send your response. We will print the responses in the following TPJ, reserving the right to edit for space considerations. While we prefer to print a name and city with each response, we understand that some of you may prefer that we not print your name. We will honor this request, so long as the response is not contrary to the objectives of the Paralegal Division or the Publications Committee.
We hope that this column provides a way for PD members to express themselves, constructively, on issues that impact our profession, our communities and our country.
Question of the Quarter:
Should nominees to the United States Supreme Court have previous judicial experience? Why is such previous experience beneficial or what benefit does one bring to the Court in not previously being part of the judiciary?
RESPONSE 1: While certainly previous judicial experience might be helpful, other professional experience would be just as vital. Certainly, a thorough understanding of Constitutional law, experience in the legal field, and life experience might weigh in more heavily than judicial experience. A keen grasp of the laws of the land, tempered with an even-tempered and analytical mind would be helpful.
—Jane Middleton
RESPONSE 2: Hopefully with age comes wisdom, integrity, knowledge and good luck every now and then. Yes, I feel that if a person has a complete understanding of the judicial process and fully understands the US Constitution and what it all stands for, then we might have a chance of getting someone in office who may stand up for what is judicially
right in representing our country.
— Kay Smith, Lubbock
RESPONSE 3: I don’t think Supreme Court nominees have to have judicial experience. I believe that if the Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the constitution, then he or she needs only to be able to read and interpret what they think the founding fathers wanted us to do when they wrote the constitution. It might be refreshing to have new viewpoints about things other than the slant the judges may have based on their own careers and decisions. I believe the best Supreme Court judge would be one who is smart, knowledgeable and caring. Then we will get the decisions we need on the most pressing issues.
— Lu Poole, Houston
RESPONSE 4: Yes. Although a certain amount of skill with regard to abstract legal thinking is inherent in law school education, our laws have become so complex that, in my view, it takes more than just the basic legal skills that one needs to graduate law school, even coupled with some experience in trying cases, to be an effective Justice on the Supreme Court. Prior judicial experience should be required as a prerequisite to confirmation in order that the public and members of the Judiciary Committee will have some level of knowledge as to how the nominee is viewed by his or her peers and legal scholars in terms of the nominee’s ability to be a fair an impartial judge and that person’s ability to truly understand the issues presented, particularly at the federal court level. Prior judicial experience would also be a means of assessing whether or not the nominee has the propensity to decide cases in accordance with the laws of the land (and whatever legal precedents existed at the time the decisions were made), rather than decide cases based upon that person’s own personal value system. I do not want to diminish the importance of a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court having some life experiences and being able to relate to the day-to-day world of the mainstream of our country’s citizenry, but that person should also be a superior legal scholar. In my opinion, it would be difficult to assess all of the above mentioned attributes of a nominee without that nominee having prior judicial experience.
—Lou O’Hanlon
RESPONSE 5: I think appointing someone to the Supremes who has never been a jurist, is rather akin to seeing a dermatologist for a broken leg. They both went to med school, but their specialties are not even related. So, I guess if we want skin cream for a broken leg, there is no problem.
— Nan Gibson, Houston
RESPONSE 6: Yes, nominees to the United States Supreme Court should definitely have previous judicial experience. A Supreme Court Justice has the responsibility to be an authority on the law in respect to the United States Constitution. An attorney may be extremely knowledgeable in constitutional law, but our Justices should possess the experience of reviewing cases and delivering concise opinions. A nominee who has argued only one side of an issue, regardless of that nominee’s successes, will not command the expertise to objectively review the important, and potentially landmark, constitutional issues that will be presented to the Court.
— Harry Jackson, Houston
RESPONSE 7: Nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, must be our best and brightest. It is essential that they possess a deep and abiding respect for the Constitution, have experience in dealing with constitutional issues, possess a thorough knowledge of constitutional law (to include the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, news articles and other writings of the period), an ability to write clearly, have a body of work that can be studied and the ability to argue persuasively. If a nominee possesses these qualities but does not have prior judicial experience, they should not be held back from consideration. Absent the qualities outlined above, however, it is not in the best interest of the court or the country to nominate someone for the position of associate justice, regardless of whether they have prior judicial experience. It would be even worse to nominate someone who is not otherwise qualified for the position solely on the basis of gender or a claim of wanting to “bring diversity to the court.”
Nominees who are otherwise qualified but have no previous judicial experience can bring talents and abilities that enhance the Court. Such is the case with many former justices, most recently Chief Justice Rehnquist, who had no prior judicial experience before being nominated as an associate justice to the Supreme Court. Some in the business community were hoping that a nominee with prior commercial litigation experience but no judicial experience would bring a real-world perspective to the court on how its opinions impact society. As much as I might agree with this position in some respects (i.e.,
Kelo v. City of New London), I believe this hope was mistaken. A nominee with a deep respect for the Constitution would not have ruled for the City of New London no matter their prior experience, on the bench or arguing in front of it.
—Laurie Borski, San Antonio
|
