Or, like presidents, can they be actors and peanut farmers?
Earl Warren, a rather famous chief justice, was a politician. If he’s any indication, I hope they stick with judges from now on.
I beleive that Taft (a former POTUS) was appointed to the Supreme Court. Not sure if he had been a judge before becoming the POTUS.
Yes he was a judge. But John Jay (the first Chief Justic) was not. He was a politician and even resigned from the court to become the govenor of New York.
see www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/justices for a complete list.
make that www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/justices/
I hate having to use netscape 4.7 at work.
No, in fact there are no requirements whatsoever for the qualifications of Supreme Court justices or federal District or Circuit judges, other that they be appointed by the President after the advice and consent of the Senate. Technically, they don’t even have to be lawyers, though I’m sure Senate confirmation of a non-lawer would be difficult.
Chief Justice Rhenquist ((official Supreme Court Bio–PDF file) was originally appointed as an Associate Justice in 1972 after serving as Assistant Attorney General from 1969 to 1971. Prior to that, he had been in private practice in Phoenix, served as law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson and served in the Army Air Corps. He appears to have had no prior judicial service.
The remainder of the members of the Supreme Court served as state or federal judges prior to their appointments.
Federal Circuit and District judges are frequently appointed with experience in the federal or state judiciary, but they are also frequently appointed from the practice of law, from academia or from non-judicial government service.
Define have.
There is no legal requirement that they be judges.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States.html#s18
OTOH, without a judicial record, there is little for the Senate to review. While some lower judges get approved with few (or no) opinions, it is less likely that a Supreme Court Justice will be approved without a body of opinions for the Senate to review; though, as the quoted material indicates, it has happened.
Sorry for the extraneous quote of the previous post.
The short answer is “no,” and it’s theoretically possible to have a non-lawyer appointed to the High Court. But so far as I know it’s never happened, in no small part because the organized bar would have a conniption.
Not only was William Howard Taft a former appellate judge when he became president - he remains the youngest man ever to attain such a position. He was 34 when President Harrison appointed him to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1892.
On the other hand, Chief Justice Warren had not been a judge before. Nevertheless, he’d served as Alemeda County District Attorney for 13 years, California Attorney General for 4 years, and Governor of California for 8 years - a distinguished record.
Similarly, Hugo L. Black, the first amendment’s defender-in-chief, appears to have served a year or so as a police court judge early in his career - but that was his sole judicial experience.
It seems to have become less common for non-judges to be elevated to the Supreme Court, and I suspect that’s because it’s become a more politicized position. Someone who’s already a judge has a written track record, which (many believe) will decrease the odds of getting a surprise, although it’s no guarantee.
The US Constitution says of the President
Note that it doesn’t put any restrictions on whom he can appoint. So presumably he could appoint anyone he wanted (as long as the Senate would approve).
Lewis Powell, who served from 1972-1987 had no previous experience as a judge, although he was president of the American Bar Association.
Presidents have to be 35 and native born to prevent the stupid European (and Tibetan) practice of annointing foreign children to high office.
So, can foreign born children become supreme court judges? Can Dubya appoint one of the Brit bonny princes?
In theory, yes. In practice, the question becomes, can he get a majority in the Senate to approve, and can he get a 3/5 majority to avoid a filibuster if he appoints someone of extremist views? In your hypothetical appointment of Wills or Harry, they would be required to take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which would seem to me to militate against their being able to remain in the royal line of succession; it would seem they would have to become U.S. citizens.
I think you should expect to see nominees whose jurisprudential philosophy is on record somehow, whether as a judge or as a politician holding legislative or executive office. To cite an odd example, I don’t believe John Ashcroft ever served as a judge, but his stance on constitutional law is evident from his time as senator and attorney general.
CurtC, if you’re willing to take it to a new thread in GD, the Pit, or somewhere, I’d like to know what your objections to Earl Warren as a judge are. This is not to start a fight about him; I’m merely curious.
The main objection to Earl Warren is the same reason I liked him. He was more fond of finding the rational and fair answers than in favoring prior court opinions. This idea that once decided, always decided is more of a religious philosophy, like the accumulating rules of the popes.
Chief Justic Arnold, “the Judginator” :eek:
We would, true, but not because we want to preserve our monopoly, or at least not exclusively that. Most non-lawyers simply wouldn’t understand what’s going on in most cases because the law is a system still based in large part on rules developed over the last several centuries that laypeople generally have no reason to need to know.
–Cliffy
Well, no, not really. The stare decisis doctrine allows people to know that the rules aren’t going to change from one case to the next without a damn good reason.
Not only do they not have to be judges, they do not have to be attorneys.
(There are many portions of the judiciary that are open to non-attorneys, and there’s even an association of non-lawyer judges… AJA? NJA? Something like that)
Justice Brandeis never served as a judge before he was appointed to the Supreme Court. He was just a lawyer.
And one of the most gracious, kind, and unpresupposing men you’d ever hope to meet. It was a pleasure to know him.