Re: What's missing?

bsharporflat — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:49:40 GMT

Sotomayor is female and Latina and highly qualifed. End of story. Waste of time to ponder the difficult "choice". Something pretty ugly would have to surface to sabotage her nomination and approval. And if Clarence Thomas made it in.....

Re: What's missing?

Illinichief — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:43:36 GMT

Fozzy makes a good point. How many of the proposed candidates have done ANY of the legal grunt work that is part and parcel of our legal system? How many have drafted a contract, done a title search, opened a probate estate, drawn trust articles and/or wills and overseen their execution, prepared an estate tax return, drafted a complaint for Dissolution of Marriage, or filed a Citation to Discover Assets? The justices who will eventually have to decide cases dealing with routine legal processes should have at least some familiarity with those processes.

What's missing?

fozzy — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:04:19 GMT

Not all of the bios are complete, but how many of these candidates (if *any*) have ever stood up in a courtroom and defended a person in a criminal trial? In another article it is pointed out that Thurgood Marshall was the last Justice who defended someone in a capital trial -- increasingly it is hard to even find "candidates" who've defended so much as a speeding ticket.

And as for "prosecutors", it seems that virtually all of the prosecutorial experience of the candidates is as 'stud' or 'clique' prosecutors who never actually handled full dockets in the trenches, but rather went straight to high-visibility high-power jobs with AGs and the Feds. You know, try a prominent case or two while working on a new law review article and networking for your next appointment.

IMHO most of our senior jurists are completely "out of touch" (i.e. incredibly ignorant) of how the justice system actually operates at the magistrate/state district court level --- where the vast majority of cases are tried and where most Americans have their contact with the court system. Starved for money, expected to handle ever -increasing caseloads, and with rampant politicization, the ideals and theories espoused in many Supreme Court opinions are simply laughable. Accustomed to only "top jobs" in elite firms and high-rise federal buildings, the people we are putting on the highest courts simply don't realize, it seems, just what the effects (or lack thereof) of their decisions are.

Can't we find at least ONE candidate who started out their career slogging through a magistrate court docket instead of a highfalutin' clerkship with some famous judge? Someone who has defended, or even prosecuted, "mere" DWI cases and seen firsthand how our justice system works in "factory mode"? Someone who understands that marble halls, pomp and circumstance, and the ability to pick and choose cases is a rare circumstance indeed - and that most of the attorneys in this nation are struggling with an underfunded, overburdened system ruled by increasingly politicized judges?

As someone remarked years ago after a particular decision, "Obviously no one on the Supreme Court has ridden a bus lately..." I feel the same way when I read Supreme Court decisions that dwell on how many angels can dance on the head of pin while the local courts strip ever more of our constitutional safeguards in the interest of 'economy'. Heck, if you don't need a law degree to be a magistrate judge and put people in jail for a year, then why do you need a law degree to be on the high court? You apparently don't need much, if any, experience in criminal law....

Jurisprudence

Re: What's missing?

Re: What's missing?

What's missing?