Sen. Harry Reid, "We have too many judges on the Supreme Court."

[AndrewR]

That is a direct quote from an interview with Andrea Mitchell.

What? Am I mistaken in the assumption that a judicial position on the highest court in the country would best be served by someone who is a judge?

He was saying that he wants to see a governor or a seasoned trial attorney take the open court position, but I found his comment odd. I wonder if he has someone in mind.

 

[OCGuy]

I dont really think it matters who is in the SCOTUS. They dont interpret the law, they rule to support thier ideology.

 

[PokerGuy]

That idiot Reid is at it again. The SCOTUS interprets the law (with the US constitution as the most fundamental law). Who would you have interpreting laws if not judges? Governors?? Are you serious? How about we just pick someone of the street and say "you wanna be on the SCOTUS for a while?". That's what's wrong with the process, it's all about ideology and not about someone's ability to interpret the law.

 

[MovingTarget]

Heh, he would've loved FDR in his day. I think that having multiple SCOTUS justices is ideal. Any fewer than what we have now, and the court would most certainly become more politicized. If you think it is bad now with the nomination/confirmation process about 'liberal' or 'conservative' justices, just wait until a vacancy opens up on a SCOTUS that has 3 or 5 members, max. However, too many justices can have the same effect. I can see bumping it up to 11 justices over the long term, but the problem is that some president would have to nominate them to start with, and would hence try to pack the court like FDR did.

 

[fskimospy]

He was probably referring to the USSC throughout history. It was quite frequent in the past to have non-lawyers/judges on there, but it isn't today.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, he would've loved FDR in his day. I think that having multiple SCOTUS justices is ideal. Any fewer than what we have now, and the court would most certainly become more politicized. If you think it is bad now with the nomination/confirmation process about 'liberal' or 'conservative' justices, just wait until a vacancy opens up on a SCOTUS that has 3 or 5 members, max. However, too many justices can have the same effect. I can see bumping it up to 11 justices over the long term, but the problem is that some president would have to nominate them to start with, and would hence try to pack the court like FDR did.

i think that the reference is to have more non-judges, not less total judges...

i think reid wants the job...

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
He was probably referring to the USSC throughout history. It was quite frequent in the past to have non-lawyers/judges on there, but it isn't today.

I guess the people in this thread do not know much about the history of the SCOTUS.

 

[Thump553]

It's not a stupid statement. According the this NY Times article for the entrie history of the Court, it wasn't until the recent appointment of Chief Justice Roberts last year that all the sitting justices had prior appellate experience. In fact, that NY Times article quotes the late Felix Frankfurter (an extremely respected Justice) as follows:

Justice Frankfurter, writing in 1957, had a blunt assessment of this phenomenon. ?The correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the functions of the Supreme Court,? he said, ?is zero.?

The Supreme Court doesn't try cases, so experience as a trial judge is mostly meaningless. Prior appellate experience is meaningful, but mostly to the Senators-so they can have written opinions to examine.

There is no reason why a good law professor or attorney could not be a superb Supreme Court Justice. Technically speaking you don't even have to be an attorney to be on the Supreme Court, and nearly all of the early Justices weren't.

 

[bobsmith1492]

The legislative branch is full of lawyers; the judicial branch is full of judges; where does that leave the executive branch - full of executors?

 

[Slick5150]

Yup. Its been argued by many people that judges are far from the best people to serve on the supreme court. I don't necessarily disagree with that. Someone with a good foundation in American government and obviously in constitutional law is what you'd be looking for.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, he would've loved FDR in his day. I think that having multiple SCOTUS justices is ideal. Any fewer than what we have now, and the court would most certainly become more politicized. If you think it is bad now with the nomination/confirmation process about 'liberal' or 'conservative' justices, just wait until a vacancy opens up on a SCOTUS that has 3 or 5 members, max. However, too many justices can have the same effect. I can see bumping it up to 11 justices over the long term, but the problem is that some president would have to nominate them to start with, and would hence try to pack the court like FDR did.

Um, I think you need to read the article again. He's not saying there are too many justices on the supreme court, he's saying there's too many judges serving as justices on the supreme court right now.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Thump553
It's not a stupid statement. According the this NY Times article for the entrie history of the Court, it wasn't until the recent appointment of Chief Justice Roberts last year that all the sitting justices had prior appellate experience. In fact, that NY Times article quotes the late Felix Frankfurter (an extremely respected Justice) as follows:

Justice Frankfurter, writing in 1957, had a blunt assessment of this phenomenon. ?The correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the functions of the Supreme Court,? he said, ?is zero.?

The Supreme Court doesn't try cases, so experience as a trial judge is mostly meaningless. Prior appellate experience is meaningful, but mostly to the Senators-so they can have written opinions to examine.

There is no reason why a good law professor or attorney could not be a superb Supreme Court Justice. Technically speaking you don't even have to be an attorney to be on the Supreme Court, and nearly all of the early Justices weren't.

I'd agree that any good law professor or attorney could be a fine SC candidate, even with NO judicial experience. However, the law is sufficiently complicated these days that while being an attorney isn't technically required, it'd be stupid to nominate a non-attorney at this point.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
He was probably referring to the USSC throughout history. It was quite frequent in the past to have non-lawyers/judges on there, but it isn't today.

Bingo.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, he would've loved FDR in his day. I think that having multiple SCOTUS justices is ideal. Any fewer than what we have now, and the court would most certainly become more politicized. If you think it is bad now with the nomination/confirmation process about 'liberal' or 'conservative' justices, just wait until a vacancy opens up on a SCOTUS that has 3 or 5 members, max. However, too many justices can have the same effect. I can see bumping it up to 11 justices over the long term, but the problem is that some president would have to nominate them to start with, and would hence try to pack the court like FDR did.

i think that the reference is to have more non-judges, not less total judges...

i think reid wants the job...

Considering his senate seat is possibly hot, it'd be no surprise.

I think I'd migrate to the moon, however, if Obama were to appoint him.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
He was probably referring to the USSC throughout history. It was quite frequent in the past to have non-lawyers/judges on there, but it isn't today.

Sure, I get that, but it's like the difference between a small town where the general store owner is also a dentist and the judge and a modern city. In the current world, with the complexity of laws and legal issues at hand, having people without judicial experience be on the top law-interpreting body in the country makes no sense. Reid being an idiot as usual.

 

[Moonbeam]

The problem with judges is that they are schooled in and enamored of judicial theories and usually that a conservative or a liberal reading of the constitution is what should be applied, when, of course, what should be applied is justice.

Every higher primate all the way down to monkeys understand the notion of fairness and can see when things aren't fair. What a Supreme court justice needs is access to the true feelings in his heart. A garbage man can be a thousand times more spiritually evolved than a king. What you want in a judge is a man whose whole being is committed to truth and justice.

There is nothing sacred about the law. It is our human attempt to approximate justice. When the laws require interpretation it shouldn't be on tradition or abstract judicial theory. It should be on how the law can be interpreted in a way that is most just. In every soul there is this longing for justice. Let justice be done on earth as it is in heaven.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
He was probably referring to the USSC throughout history. It was quite frequent in the past to have non-lawyers/judges on there, but it isn't today.

Sure, I get that, but it's like the difference between a small town where the general store owner is also a dentist and the judge and a modern city. In the current world, with the complexity of laws and legal issues at hand, having people without judicial experience be on the top law-interpreting body in the country makes no sense. Reid being an idiot as usual.

Just because a person lacks judicial experience doesn't mean they lack an understanding of the issues. Several of the non-judges supposedly being considered by Obama are law professors. I have no problem with that, and am sure they'd be as fit for the SC bench as any current judge. Heck, the seat being is vacated is that of David Souter, who was only ever a judge at the state level before he joined the Court. He'd never served as a federal judge, and as any competent lawyer can tell you, the differences between state and federal law can be huge.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The problem with judges is that they are schooled in and enamored of judicial theories and usually that a conservative or a liberal reading of the constitution is what should be applied, when, of course, what should be applied is justice.

Every higher primate all the way down to monkeys understand the notion of fairness and can see when things aren't fair. What a Supreme court justice needs is access to the true feelings in his heart. A garbage man can be a thousand times more spiritually evolved than a king. What you want in a judge is a man whose whole being is committed to truth and justice.

There is nothing sacred about the law. It is our human attempt to approximate justice. When the laws require interpretation it shouldn't be on tradition or abstract judicial theory. It should be on how the law can be interpreted in a way that is most just. In every soul there is this longing for justice. Let justice be done on earth as it is in heaven.

One man's justice is another man's travesty, Moonie. I think you were looking for the pot legalization thread.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
He was probably referring to the USSC throughout history. It was quite frequent in the past to have non-lawyers/judges on there, but it isn't today.

Interesting, I didn't realize that. Looks like it's time for me to read up on the history of the Supreme Court.

 

[senseamp]

I think we should have 15, with 5 randomly chosen for every case.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we should have 15, with 5 randomly chosen for every case.

Lots of appellate courts already work this way, with single judge decisions (usually nonprecedential and not officially published) in minor cases, panel decisions (usually 3-5 judges, but not the whole court) in more important cases, and en banc decisions (full court) in really landmark cases. Seems like an interesting idea at first, but it might only complicate things.

 

[Hacp]

For once, I agree with Harry Ried. We do have too many judges. The vacancy left by Souter should not be filled, and the Supreme Court justice count should be reduced from its current number of 9 judges to 8 judges.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we should have 15, with 5 randomly chosen for every case.

Humm...I'll have to think on that. I kinda like it.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we should have 15, with 5 randomly chosen for every case.

I don't think this is a good idea for the SCOTUS. Many cases are split on partisan lines, with only a couple moderate judges. The outcome for many cases could be a product of which judges you draw. Similar cases could have disparate decisions based on the politics of the Justices.

We need consistency in the SCOTUS.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The problem with judges is that they are schooled in and enamored of judicial theories and usually that a conservative or a liberal reading of the constitution is what should be applied, when, of course, what should be applied is justice.

Every higher primate all the way down to monkeys understand the notion of fairness and can see when things aren't fair. What a Supreme court justice needs is access to the true feelings in his heart. A garbage man can be a thousand times more spiritually evolved than a king. What you want in a judge is a man whose whole being is committed to truth and justice.

There is nothing sacred about the law. It is our human attempt to approximate justice. When the laws require interpretation it shouldn't be on tradition or abstract judicial theory. It should be on how the law can be interpreted in a way that is most just. In every soul there is this longing for justice. Let justice be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Are you high?

You only support it so far as the judges support your own personal view of "justice". Makes me think back to the opening scene of The Godfather where the moritician is asking The Don to kill someone in the name of justice.

You want "justice" you do it with your vote in the legislative branch. You do not do it with a small body of people who's _only_ accountability is to themselves.