A Federal appeals judge is not a litigator. Looks like all of his legal work before taking the bench was as staff counsel and the like.
While I have always felt that litigation is central to the practice and understanding of law… I recognize that’s my own parochial view.
Most relevant to the work of a Supreme Court justice is a federal appellate court judge, followed by a state supreme court or state appellate court judge. Trial courts have to do messy things like find facts via testimony.
Hell no,
we have enough lawyers on the SCOTUS.
Like me, Obama meets the Constitutional requirements for a Supreme Court justice. Above and beyond those minimum requirements, he would be a far better justice than I would, in that he’s made a formal study of law. And there are 1.22 million other individuals in the US who meet that standard.
The only reason in favor of putting Obama on the Supreme Court is that it would be amusing to watch all of the right-wingers’ heads explode. And I’m not saying that that’s a bad reason. But there are still plenty of other individuals for whom there are better reasons.
My gosh! What, it’s doubled in a couple of decades? I bare no grudge against anyone with one of these occupations, but can you imagine if a million of the smart people now working for investment banks, in health insurance accounting, and as attorneys at the bar were to shift and work as scientists and engineers? America could certainly get some of our jobs back!)
Depends how you judge someone to be “qualified”. Know who practiced law, served in numerous senior government positions, and was also a federal judge? Clarence Thomas. Do you think he’s “qualified” – or, put it this way, who do you think would make more insightful, reasoned judgments, Thomas or Obama?
Anyway, ain’t gonna happen. At this point I’d just be happy to see Hillary eke out a narrow victory.
Clinton nominated Kagan to be a fed judge but they never voted up or down on her.