Direct commissions are possible, but all officer appointments above a certain grade (O-5 maybe?) require approval by the Senate.
The Attorney General, while his day to day doesn’t include appearing in court, does legal work all the time. Reading and understanding motions and legal arguments, interpreting the Constitution and federal statutes, setting policies for law enforcement and other agencies to comply therein, and deciding which cases to pursue and which to ignore are all applications of legal analysis which would typically be barred by someone not called to the Bar, at least if not supervised. Legal training is an absolute must for the job. But, as Elendil states, not a legal requirement. The only official qualifications for AG are appointment and confirmation.
–Cliffy
Interesting. Did not know that. By the way I do get annoyed at the US use of “High Court”, as a synonym for Supreme Court especially when they then transfer it to others countries Supreme Courts even though those countries have actual “High Courts”.
Related question, dose the Solicitor General have to be a lawyer? They don’t seem to have to have had ever argued a case, I am looking at you Elena Kagan.
We don’t say “High Court” in that instance. We say “high court,” which is a literal description.
You mean, just like Robert Bork and Ken Starr?: Elena Kagan - Wikipedia
As I noted, the U.S. Code requires that the SG be “learned in the law.” That has traditionally been interpreted to mean “possesses a law degree and is a pretty darned good lawyer.”
True but they had not argued Supreme Court cases, but I beleive both of them had experience of Courtroom Advocacy. Which Ms Kagan did not. She was an acedemic lawyer and a damn fine one from what I have read but no Advocate. Very different skill set from what the Solicitor General would have to do.
In Canada and I believe other Commonwealth jurisdictions, “learned in the law” is the phrase used to describe someone who is a QC.
Well, we really don’t have anything that can be considered parallel to Q.C. status, unless perhaps it’s a lawyer who has been admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. And I don’t think there’s any precedence for such a standard.
Ahem! Senior Advocate (India, Pakistan even before Independence). Senior Counsel (Singapore, NZ, a couple of OZ states)
By the way the original title was “Her Majesty’s Counsel learned in the Law”. I wonder if that still is the case.
BTW, “learned in law” means many different things. My Law Professor was learned in law, much more so then most people on the planet, but if you had a Court case, I think me with 4 years standing would be a better choice for you. Skill sets are different. The Solicitor Generals job is to argue cases; Courtroom Advocacy, which you don’t get as an acedemic lawyer.
Heh. Coming full circle, how about someone who lacks a law degree but served as Attorney General? (Or on the Supreme Court?)
Thanks for the contributions so far, all. I guess to sum up Arpaio is technically qualified to serve as AG but would never pass muster from a practical standpoint.
robert_columbia, that’s exactly what I meant.
Charles Aldrich replaced Taft as Solicitor General, and had a BA rather than a JD or LB/LLB.
I believe that was still a time during which you could become a member of the bar in many places by “reading” law; law school or degrees weren’t necessarily mandatory.
This is still that time, for certain values of “many”.