(July 6, 2018 at 9:06 am)henryp Wrote:(July 6, 2018 at 6:00 am)Brian37 Wrote: Bad enough our SCOTUS is about to get more fundy. But I was just watching a story about 45's potential top 3 picks. How does "Law clerk" translate to bench experience? If this is perfectly legal, why would it be? That makes no sense. It would be like letting the nurse do the neurosurgery.
Most judges have law degrees first off, but start out as court lawyers then have bench experience before they get appointed to the federal chain.
A law clerk or a judicial clerk is an individual—generally an attorney—who provides direct assistance and counsel to a judge in making legal determinations and in writing opinions by researching issues before the court.
So people who've clerked for Supreme Court Justices have experience working on cases at that level.
No sorry, while others have rightfully pointed out that these clerks did have bench experience, simply sitting at a desk acting basically as a secretary for a judge, is not the full experience as litigating in the courtroom with a gavel in front of a jury and prosecutor and defense lawyers.
"Generally an attorney" is the key. That means there are clerks who don't have bench experience. "Paralegal" would be the name for someone who has not been a judge or does not have a law degree, but works in the industry under a lawyer or judge.
But sure, I would hope that anyone serving under a SCOTUS was a former judge somewhere, or at a minimum was a court lawyer who has argued in court, and not just sat at a desk.
