Advertisement

What Do You Think?

May 13, 2010

The question posted Monday on The Herald-Mail's website was: Should Supreme Court nominees be required to have judicial experience?

Poll results:

Yes: 794 votes (77 percent)

No: 232 votes (23 percent)




"I voted yes. Why should every job a person applies to they would ask if you had any experience except a job where you can affect every citizen of the USA with your choice? Just another bumbling move by the worst president in history."

---

"For what the Supreme Court is asked to adjudicate, I'd say they should have quite a bit of federal judicial experience. The cases that the Supreme Court hears are ones in which being versed in the Constitution is a must. You just don't get that without federal experience."

Advertisement

---

"Yes. Experience brings knowledge and knowledge brings in-depth understanding where one is able to view all aspects of the law. This is a person who will be interpreting laws for all U.S. citizens and experience will be necessary to make the right decisions."

---

"The Constitution stipulates no qualifications for Supreme Court justices. Most of the prescription for nomination, appointment and confirmation of justices was written by Alexander Hamilton. Personally, I've known bricklayers I thought would make better Supreme Court justices than several justices now on the bench."

---

"A little perspective shows that Supreme Court nominees come from a cross section of experience. ... It would make sense for President Obama to cast a wider net, the way that presidents used to do, because the Supreme Court is not like other courts. It is a policy-making institution, responsible for defining our fundamental rights and liberties ... The cases that the justices must decide invariably present hard questions in which there is no clear law to apply."

---

"A person who has a degree from Princeton, a degree from Oxford and a law degree from Harvard, has taught law school at Chicago, been dean of a law school at Harvard and who has been solicitor general of the U.S. has much relevant experience and can surely handle the job well. ... (Elena Kagan has) a better resume than some of those appointed to the bench with previous experience as a judge."

---

"I don't think judicial experience should be required, however, there is no way to tell what type of justice you'll get. I'm fine with whomever strictly follows the U.S. Constitution, pure and simple."

---

"I think one important reason that a nominee should have judicial experience is to see if they did stand by the law and Constitution or if they allowed their own personal convictions to have an impact on their decisions. A Supreme Court judge can be around for a long time, so I think it is important that they rule with impartiality."

---

"I cannot believe some people do not want an experienced person to decide laws that will affect everyone. Would they feel that way about a brain surgeon?"

---

"Anybody here ever go to law school? If you did, you'd know that you already have the training to be an appellate judge. It's obvious to any clear thinker that Kagan's qualifications exceed the standard for appointment."

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|