Question for anyone who can answer.

[Brian37]

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

His picks aren't just law clerks, they are practicing judges.

You know you can Google this stuff, right?

Boru

[Brian37]

His picks aren't just law clerks, they are practicing judges.

You know you can Google this stuff, right?

Boru

Ok well, you have a point. 

Doesn't help that the story simply left it at "law clerk". 

But outside the story not making their background clear, what is the legal standard for being appointed or getting on a ballot for any bench seat? That is a separate question. I'd hope it would be just like getting a medical licence.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=...&p=2471070

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

His picks aren't just law clerks, they are practicing judges.

You know you can Google this stuff, right?

Boru

Ok well, you have a point. 

Doesn't help that the story simply left it at "law clerk". 

But outside the story not making their background clear, what is the legal standard for being appointed or getting on a ballot for any bench seat? That is a separate question. I'd hope it would be just like getting a medical licence.

A (very) quick Google search revealed that there are no qualifications whatsoever for being a US Supreme Court justice. None. 

Sleep well.

Boru

[Brian37]

Ok well, you have a point. 

Doesn't help that the story simply left it at "law clerk". 

But outside the story not making their background clear, what is the legal standard for being appointed or getting on a ballot for any bench seat? That is a separate question. I'd hope it would be just like getting a medical licence.

A (very) quick Google search revealed that there are no qualifications whatsoever for being a US Supreme Court justice. None. 

Sleep well.

Boru

That is stupid. Not even a law degree? So going by your response, 45 could nominate and put on the bench Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh?

That is scary.

---

http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=...&p=2471070

Yep, no legal requirements. I think the founders made the mistake of not putting in some. But I guess they assumed the advise and consent part would get congress to bring up experience. I find that lack of requirement scary considering whom now has the power to make those nominations and that congress is lopsided to theocratic minds.

[henryp]

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.  

[Brian37]

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.

[Mister Agenda]

A (very) quick Google search revealed that there are no qualifications whatsoever for being a US Supreme Court justice. None. 

Sleep well.

Boru

That is stupid. Not even a law degree? So going by your response, 45 could nominate and put on the bench Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh?

That is scary.

---

http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=...&p=2471070

The Senate has to advise and consent, and they generally prefer nominees who are highly qualified. I'm not sure if we can count on this particular Senate to be that picky.

Yep, no legal requirements. I think the founders made the mistake of not putting in some. But I guess they assumed the advise and consent part would get congress to bring up experience. I find that lack of requirement scary considering whom now has the power to make those nominations and that congress is lopsided to theocratic minds.

[brewer]

Scott Pruitt for supreme court. Get on the band wagon now!