What makes a Supreme Court Justice? How about John Roberts?

What are great people like when they’re young? Great musicians were often child prodigies when they were young, and so on; but what about future Presidents? Can you look at a man in his 30’s and guess whether he might become President in his 50’s or 60’s? What would you look for? Some of his work colleagues saw Obama as a future President early on; another President started as a drunken frat-boy!

But the Presidency depends on various factors: ambition, campaigning skill, etc. What about Supreme Court Justices? We imagine (or hope for) a Justice to be a man of great wisdom, with a great sense of justice, and, we hope, an over-riding desire to serve humanity. Supreme Court Justice and Potus are the two highest positions in the land but the characteristics of the two positions are — or should be — very different. Potus will usually be political, perhaps very partisan. At their best, Justices are highly non-political.

While musing about this, I reviewed the pre-Court careers of some of the great Supreme Court Justices.
[ul][li] Felix Frankfurter co-founded the ACLU at age 37.[/li][li] Thurgood Marshall founded the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund at age 32, and later successfully argued several important cases including Brown vs Board of Education.[/li][li] David Souter was a Rhodes Scholar and became New Hampshire Attorney General at age 37.[/li][li] Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the first woman to work on two major law reviews: she started at Harvard Law (after putting up with her Dean’s “Why are you at Harvard Law School, taking the place of a man?”), then — wives’ careers were subservient to husbands’ transfers — transferred to Columbia Law where she graduated first in her class.[/li][li] Stephen Breyer wrote several influential law textbooks in his 30’s.[/li][li] Arthur Goldberg arranged merger of AFL-CIO at age 39.[/li][li] William O. Douglas was Chairman of SEC at age 38.[/li][li] Elena Kagan was a Law Professor at age 31, special counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee at age 33, Assistant to the President at age 37.[/li][li] Et cetera.[/li][/ul]
It goes without saying that Supreme Court Justices should be extremely intelligent. For examples both the liberal Sonia Sotomayor and the conservative Antonin Scalia graduated summa cum laude from their law schools.

And if Associate Justices have such impressive resumes, imagine what the Chief Justice should be!
[ul][li] Earl Warren was District Attorney of a major County at age 34; and later served as California Governor.[/li][li] John Marshall played a major role in the ratification of the U.S. Constitution at age 34; and later served as Secretary of State.[/li][li] John Jay negotiated the Treaty of Paris at age 38; later served as Governor of New York.[/li][li] William Howard Taft was appointed judge while still in his 20’s; he later had several important positions including President of the United States.[/li][li] Charles Evans Hughes was a name partner in a major law firm by age 26; and later served as Secretary of State.[/li][li] Et cetera.[/li][/ul]If rising to Associate Justice is a special achievement, rising to Chief Justice is very special!

Or is it? What about the present Chief Justice, John Roberts?

John Roberts was a Member of the Republican National Lawyers Association — not exactly a decoration of non-partisanship. Roberts, working for Ronald Reagan at age 26 spearheaded efforts to gut the Voting Rights Act. He served as ghostwriter for right-wing Congressmen opposed to enabling Negro voters.

Roberts’ lies and racist views didn’t prevail on the Voting Rights Act — the Republican Senator Bob Dole of Kansas came out in support of Voting Rights — but Roberts won the admiration of fellow right-wingers and advocates of voter suppression — and therefore this was the man chosen to be Chief Justice of the United States! :eek:

During the confirmation hearing Roberts lied, suggesting that he viewed VRA as settled law. Instead, as Chief Justice, he overthrew or weakened its provisions at every opportunity.

The article I’m quoting is from 2015. In fact voting rights cases did reach the Supreme Court over the next four years, with inevitable 5-4 votes that can only be seen as deliberately disenfranchising minorities.

If my antipathy toward Roberts is seen as partisan, read comments by a federal Judge: “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy”.

Beer.

Roberts had a very impressive background, in high school, he was captain of the football team, valedictorian, and a champion wrestler. In college he won two awards for most outstanding essay and was managing editor of the Law Review. At 26 he was special assistant to the Attorney General. At 34 he was Principal Deputy Solicitor General, at 37 he was nominated to be a appeals judge, at 38 he was a partner in a law firm and professor at Georgetown Law school. In his 14 years of private practice he argued 39 cases before the supreme court and won 25 of them.

Are family connections important for getting on the supreme court?

In politics they are deeply important. Looking at the last several presidential elections, you can argue that Hillary Clinton, Trump, Romney, McCain, Bush and Gore all had a huge leg up due to family connections (spouses and parents who were wealthy, powerful and influential). Obama and Bill Clinton were about the only self made presidential candidates in the last 20 years.

Are supreme court justices the same? Are many the children or spouses of wealthy and influential people? They don’t seem to be, which is good. I’d rather have a judge who is a judge due to competence and merit rather than family connections.

Sadly with the appointment of people like Kavanaugh I think the Supreme court will just be seen more as a place for incompetent partisans to rule. Kavanaugh got his appointment due to his ideological agenda, not any real skillset. Then again, people like Sotomayor had their gender and race be a meaningful part of their appointment too, but to her credit Sotomayor is deeply accomplished outside of that. Its more that there are endless highly accomplished candidates to pick from, and you are going to pick one whose demographics help you appeal to voters from that bunch.

I think the path to the top in any field has three elements:

  1. Inherent skills
  2. Drive
  3. Luck

For a Supreme Court Justice, the relevant inherent skills would be what is traditionally called book learning; the ability to go through a pile of written text and pull out the important details and organize them in the right way. I assume John Roberts has this skill; it would be notable if a man in his position did not.

The skills for a great Chief Justice would also include political skills. A Chief Justice who wants to control the court has to have the ability to work with his colleagues and get them to move in the direction he wants them to go. As an example look at Earl Warren; I think even the people who hate him would concede he was a master of getting his way. I don’t feel Roberts has that kind of control over the current court.

Pretty much have to go to a top law school like an Ivy or Stanford or Chicago. Many Yale and Harvard law grads on there now. Bush Jr. nominated a woman who went to SMU law school and people were surprised and talked about her schooling. She withdrew her name for reasons not related to her alma mater.

Well, Mrs. Ginsberg’s profile isn’t particularly impressive, she was able to get by since she had a rich and very well connected husband who managed to ensure she got choice assignments and jobs and juicy cases and later lobbied his friends and contacts for her to be elevated to the Bench…

Yeah, see how you can do that to anyone?
Ok, Kagan, never argued a case, was appointed Solicitor General for some reason and was made a SC justice by Obama.
Bryer, Government hack, pushed by Ted Kennedy.

I love that this is what you lead off with. :smiley: After the OP talks about how “Felix Frankfurter co-founded the ACLU at age 37” and such, we get that John Roberts was captain of the football team in high school.

What it means is that Roberts was a strong leader as a teenager and transcends politics.

Many of the qualifications you regard positively for other Supreme Court justices are also highly political and partisan. The notion that a judge should be nonpartisan or apolitical is flawed to begin with, and it’s improper to criticize Roberts for likewise being partisan.

Roberts was appearing before SCOTUS in his 20’s. He was Assistant to the AG and then Principle Deputy Solicitor General at 34.
He then became one of the leading SCOTUS advocates of his generation. By any standard that’s a top rate resume and whatever your views of the man that has to be admitted.

A few years back I was somewhat surprised to learn that not only did all nine have law degrees from Yale or Harvard, but all but one also obtained their bachelor’s degrees at one or the other (Thomas went to Holy Cross).

Don’t know what the ratio is today. I do know Kavanaugh was a Yale undergrad because he drank a hella lot there and occasionally waggled his penis in other students’ faces. He likes beer, I understand.

septimus writes:

> Great musicians were often child prodigies when they were young, and so on . . .

Checking who was a child prodigy is not the best way to predict who will be tops in their profession as an adult. Yes, the vast majority of child prodigies end up doing well in their professions, but only a very small proportion of them become the top people in what they do. The ones who end up on top did O.K. as children but in general weren’t child prodigies. This article talks about why this seems to be true:

Being an appellate judge just ain’t that damn hard. You need the ability to conduct legal research, consider arguments, and write opinions. Pretty much any 3L could do it. What gets you this gig is the same as any other appointed gig–connections.

What?

Why?

Earl Warren was perhaps the most outspoken politician in favor of interning Japanese Americans during World War II.

Douglas voted to uphold the internment in Korematsu v. United States (along with fellow outstanding justice Hugo Black)

John Jay’s Supreme Court heard a total of four cases. His poorly worded reasoning in Georgia v. Bransford Has been used as a justification for jury nullification for 225 years, and his ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia was the direct cause for the enactment of the 11th Amendment.

It’s pretty clear that whatever makes a Supreme Court Justice, it isn’t necessarily a good resume.

Yeah, I’ve got to say that, in a lot of cases, both at the Circuit Court and Supreme Court level (and state appellate courts), much of what these judges and justices do doesn’t seem especially complicated. I’m not arguing that it’s easy, or that anyone could do it, but it’s nearly all stuff that’s within the scope and abilities of many intelligent and properly trained people.

I’m not a lawyer, but I take a pretty keen amateur interest in quite a few areas of constitutional law and criminal justice. I listen to legal podcasts, read law-related journalism and blogs, read works of legal history, and read appellate court opinions and dissents, current and historical. Even just doing this in my spare time, I’ve developed a pretty good sense of a whole bunch of legal concepts and decisions.

I could give you a pretty decent explanation of some of the key principles involved in administrative law principles like Chevron and Auer deference. I can talk fairly knowledgeably about some of the issues that courts have to consider in Bivens actions and Section 1983 lawsuits, and the factors that might support a claim of qualified immunity. I have a pretty solid understanding of the dormant commerce clause and how it might be applied in different types of cases. There are a whole bunch of other things that I’ve spent time reading about.

I’m not arguing that I could sit on a bench. Far from it. One reason these judges get their jobs is because they’ve spent decades accumulating knowledge and experience that allows them to grasp a wide range of legal issues quickly and confidently. But much of the work that appellate judges do requires exactly the same sorts of skills of research, analysis, and explanation that you find in many intellectual pursuits, and if I had spent that last 20 years of my life studying and practicing law instead of studying and teaching history, I’m pretty confident that I could do the job.

And quite frankly, I’ve read some appellate court decisions, concurrences, and dissents that make me wonder how the judges in question ever graduated college, let alone got confirmed to a seat on the federal judiciary.