"Chief Justice John Roberts recently stated his opinion that the fact that every currently sitting Justice has, for the first time in history, been a federal appeals judge was a good thing. I myself am not so sure this is a good thing. Looking back at history, scientific studies, even common sense makes this opinion suspect.posted by ericb at 8:11 AM on May 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I am not sure how many people realize, but there has never been a requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a judge, or even a lawyer. It’s really only in the last twenty years or so that this has become something of the standard. Historically many have not been judges. Some of the most influential justices were not judges. Chief Justices Marshall and Warren are two examples of this. They may be the two most influential Chief Justices to date with Marshall defining what would become the modern court. Warren is noted for the number of Civil Rights decisions handed down during his tenure. Both were in fact politicians and public servants but neither was ever a judge. This points out that you don’t need to be a judge to be a good justice.
There is a deeper perspective here though in why a SCOTUS full of only judges would be a bad thing. While the law, and an understanding of how the law works is important the Supreme Court requires more than just pure expertise in the letter and workings of the law. The SCOTUS, at least to me, is much more than simply the highest level of appeals court. Decisions made by this court can, and will, have far reaching impact well beyond the case they are hearing. Decisions have been made which have, quite literally, change the course of the nation. Examples of this include Dred Scott vs. Sandford, Marbury vs. Madison, Brown vs. The Board of Education, Rove vs. Wade . Those are just some examples of cases which have had powerful political ramifications. It’s this reason why you need a court with a mix of those who understand public policy as well as law."
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?") Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."posted by grobstein at 6:15 PM on May 4, 2009
[. . .] It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement--they'd like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible. And they think that Sotomayor, although personally and professionally impressive, may not meet that demanding standard. Given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble.
I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.One would think that a responsible journalist would refrain from impugning the ability, intelligence, and temperament of a respected judge until having done so.
Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."posted by grobstein at 7:32 PM on May 7, 2009
« Older EA games releases a new adaptation of the epic Ita... | [Ezra Pound] worked on and for... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:33 PM on April 30, 2009