It’s not radical, it’s just a relatively recent consideration.
From the article mentioned by Elendil’s Heir in Post 39.
Rehnquist had neither.
I’m not bothered at all by her lack of judicial experience. I think we got sidetracked over the last few decades into making that a de facto qualification. She has plenty of experience in legal matters, and although she may not be an ace constitutional scholar, she seems to have enough experience and aptitude that it shouldn’t be an issue. Further, I think Obama is a thoughtful enough president that he wouldn’t nominate someone to the court who he thinks is not qualified.
Not true - he served as a clerk for Justice Jackson for a term.
You could argue that both of Obama’s choices have been to the right of the person they replaced. Things are not going to get interesting until Thomas, Scalia, Alito, or Roberts retire.
Fair enough. I hope it doesn’t seem like I am attacking.
All law students are required to study Constitutional law as part of their first-year curriculum. So to that extent, anyone with a law degree is a “Constitutional scholar,” experienced in reading, interpreting and applying to facts the cases which comprise Constitutional law precedent.
The study of Constitutional law necessarily entails the study of past Supreme Court cases. So every lawyer necessarily has some familiarity with Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Law school also includes instruction and experience in conducting legal research. Moreover, the practice of law (particularly litigation) requires this skill. It also requires the ability to understand both sides of an argument. (Absolutely necessary in order to anticipate and counter your opponent’s arguments.) So bench experience provides nothing unique there either.
Uh, no. Pre-med students are required to take a year of physics. They are not “scholars of physics”. You are confusing “scholar” with “student”. Big difference.
- That’s neither bench experience nor “Constitutional Scholar” credentials.
- Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, so if even if you want to count clerking for a Supreme Court Justice as meaningful, then you have to count it for Kagan too.
First of all, I am not one of the people claiming that such experience doesn’t count - this wouldn’t jibe with arguments I have made in the past, and isn’t my belief. Certainly Rehnquist’s experience as a Supreme Court clerk is meaningful - so is Kagan’s.
And while this is not the epitome of bench or constitutional experience, neither is it a nullity, which you seem to be arguing.
Barring big health problems or incapacitation, they will not retire while Obama is in office. I assume Kennedy wouldn’t either, but I could at least imagine people wondering about it. (Granted any of them could have a heart attack tomorrow, but so could anybody that age.) That’s part of why Sotomayor got confirmed without a lot of trouble and I expect Kagan will, too, along with whoever Obama eventually gets to choose to replace Ginsburg. If the balance of the court isn’t changing, there is not much cause for anyone to get very worked up. Senate Republicans may not like Kagan or Sotomayor for various reasons, but if they were shot down Obama would just nominate someone else similar.
Gee the condescension is a nice touch.
Here’s Merriam-Webster:
By definition, law students are Constitutional law scholars.
This is ridiculous. The discussion was never about whether or not Kagan has studied the Constitution, it was whether or not she met definition B - whether or not she was a distinguished scholar. Since she went to Princeton, Harvard, and Oxford, was the dean of Harvard Law, taught Constitutional law and is now the solicitor general of the U.S., I think we can assume she has some familitarity with the thing. I don’t think her credentials are lacking or anything, but really.
Demographics of past Supreme Court justices, incl. professional backgrounds: Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia
The discussion I was having with Una Persson was whether bench experience is necessary or peculiarly helpful to a Supreme Court appointee.
In the context of that discussion, she seemed to be under the impression that an experienced judge would have a special expertise in constitutional law gained from sitting on the bench. I was pointing out something that Una Persson (not being a lawyer) might not know: that all lawyers have studied Constitutional law.
OK. I’ll just call her a “constitutional pupil”, since context makes no difference in the nuance of what “scholar” means in a discussion of SCOTUS justices.
Play whatever semantic games you like. But don’t condescend to explain the definition of a word to me when you obviously don’t know it yourself.
Words have different definitions in different contexts. When someone calls a SCOTUS nominee a “constitutional scholar”, that’s different from calling her a “constitutional pupil”.
I don’t care what that dictionary says, that is not how the word is commonly used. “Scholar”, especially in this context, means a particular learned person, not just every schmo who ever went to law school.
Maybe you should care a little if you are going to launch into a condescending lecture on semantics.
I think this hijack has been exhausted. Let’s move on.
redacted…