Question for anyone who can answer.

[Brian37]

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

LOL I would rather staple my nuts to the wall.

[brewer]

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

LOL I would rather staple my nuts to the wall.

He is a known acheiver, a man who can get things done, for a price.

[henryp]

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.

Clerking for a supreme court justice isn't 'basically a secretary'.  You know you have very limited knowledge about the significance of clerking for a supreme court justice, so why are you drawing strong conclusions based on your poor understanding?  (or why not google it, as someone else suggested instead of just saying ignorant things with confidence?)

Essentially it's the best of the "best of the best".  You have to be in the top tier at a top tier law school to have a shot.  And then you have to be the best of that group.

[Brian37]

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.

Clerking for a supreme court justice isn't 'basically a secretary'.  You know you have very limited knowledge about the significance of clerking for a supreme court justice, so why are you drawing strong conclusions based on your poor understanding?  (or why not google it, as someone else suggested instead of just saying ignorant things with confidence?)

Essentially it's the best of the "best of the best".  You have to be in the top tier at a top tier law school to have a shot.  And then you have to be the best of that group.

You are still missing my point. Others here pointed out what you just said in this post, and I accept that now. But, at the same time others here posted the Constitutional requirements to be a judge, and if you go look at that link, a degree is not required. 

"Advise and Consent" are the litmus test, but if our congress gets stupid in the future, because there is no standard, if enough assholes like Trump infect congress, we could have a Rush Limbaugh in. But regardless, our SCOTUS even with bench experience, have bent right economically for the past 36 years, and now trending even religiously more if the president gets what he wants. 

It still scares me that there is no written standard as others pointed out other than "advise and consent". It is still possible if enough politicians think theocratic that the "advise and consent" can really fuck things up and turn back the clock. Our right wing has been jerking off over the prospect of turning back Roe V Wade and now considering this is their best chance. The majority right wing court just said it is ok to fuck over gays if you are a business.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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.

Constitutionally anyone can be a SCOTUS justice, even you.  Recently it's just become an exclusive club for Catholics and Jews.  We need more diversity on the SCOTUS because it's inbred by a bunch of old buzzards.

[Joods]

He can nominate anyone he wants. The real test is passing Congress. He can't just put anyone in there. They have to pass the smell test first.

[vorlon13]

The actual problem (that everyone else seems to be ignoring) isn't that Trump won the election, it's that it was Hillary's to lose all along and she did.

Ignoring that salient (and inconvenient) fact increases the odds of future debacles.


Mook, Hillary, Podesta, Wasserman-Shultz, and Perez all need daily reminders to pull their vacuous heads out of their cloistered assholes so that we might win some races this fall. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be on anyone's to do list these days.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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.

Clerking for a supreme court justice isn't 'basically a secretary'.  You know you have very limited knowledge about the significance of clerking for a supreme court justice, so why are you drawing strong conclusions based on your poor understanding?  (or why not google it, as someone else suggested instead of just saying ignorant things with confidence?)

Essentially it's the best of the "best of the best".  You have to be in the top tier at a top tier law school to have a shot.  And then you have to be the best of that group.

The clerks write most of the opinions.  The justices might tell them to find justification of the way they want to decide the issue and then the clerks do the research and write the opinion to support the justice's views.

[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.

Constitutionally anyone can be a SCOTUS justice, even you.  Recently it's just become an exclusive club for Catholics and Jews.  We need more diversity on the SCOTUS because it's inbred by a bunch of old buzzards.

Nice display of bigotry there.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Constitutionally anyone can be a SCOTUS justice, even you.  Recently it's just become an exclusive club for Catholics and Jews.  We need more diversity on the SCOTUS because it's inbred by a bunch of old buzzards.

Nice display of bigotry there.

People complain about the court's decisions all the time.  So you look at the background of who's on it and what do you see?  Members from the same two groups that have been on the court for years.  You can bet your ass if I was doing the appointing I would appoint people from other groups.