A frequent commenter here, "Ed," has suggested several times that legal training is not, or should not be, a prerequisite for people who earn a living interpreting the Consitution. In his view, "above average intelligence" and the ability to "think critically" suffice.

I'm curious to know his views on whether prior bench experience, or even prior legal experience, are valuable or important credentials for a Supreme Court nominee? Would "Ed" put a non-lawyer on the court?

Mark said:

"I'm curious to know (Ed's) views on whether prior bench experience, or even prior legal experience, are valuable or important credentials for a Supreme Court nominee? Would "Ed" put a non-lawyer on the court?"

I'm not Ed, nor do I play him on t.v., but IMHO, the answers to your questions should be no and yes, respectively. At least when it pertains to interpreting the Constitution, which is one of the simplest and easiest to read documents I've ever come across. Interpreting the tortuous and convoluted logic our esteemed congresscritters use to craft our nation's laws is something else entirely.

To Tim Russert:

So you like Harriet Miers. That just warms the cockles of my heart.

Of the 110 people who have sat on the Supreme Court, only half have been sitting judges when selected

Sound like one of those misleading stats to me. Out of the 110 judges, how many were never a judge?

Wayne,

That's the way I read it, too. In other words, "how many had no judging experience whatsoever at any time prior to their nomination?" That's a different question from, "how many were not sitting when selected." I suspect the answers are different, but I don't know.

Hmmmm.

I'm not "Ed" but my opinion is that to nominate a non-lawyer you'd have to have someone who would have a Spine of Iron and a willingness to fight anyone and everyone over every single detail. And even then you're talking about someone who would largely be at a huge disadvantage when it comes to the internal debate within the Supreme Court.

And let's face facts here. This is yet another backstab by Bush and the GOP towards conservatives.

I've repeated myself many times. I've had some people call me a shill for the DU. But twenty-five years of carrying the GOP on our backs and we get Roberts and Miers?

Yeah I'm really f-ing rewarded now.

COME ON NOW! CAN'T YOU SEE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? THE SUPREME COURT IS JUST ANOTHER POKER GAME TO SMIRKY MCCHIMPLERBURTON. MIZ HARRIET IS A BLUFF. SHE WON'T GET CONFIRMED IN A MILLION YEARS. IF SHE DOES, PRETZEL BOY WINS. SHE IS HIS MOST LOYAL ASSOCIATE. IF SHE DOESN'T GET CONFIRMED, (MOST LIKELY) THE AWOL TANGSTER STILL WINS. THE GOP WILL DELAY THE NEXT NOMINEE'S CONFIRMATION - UNTIL SWAGGERING SMIRKSTER CAN RAM SOMEBODY LIKE PAT ROBERTSON OR JOHN ASHCROFT THRU WITH A "RECESS APPOINTMENT". WITH THE COURT SO PACKED, BUSH WILL THEN HAVE THE POWER TO OVERTURN THE PRESIDENTIAL TERM LIMIT ORDNANCES, AND THEN SELECT HIMSELF FOR HIS THIRD CONSECUTIVE (STOLEN) TERM.

BUSH HAS THE NUTS ON THIS ONE, FOLKS.

--
OHB

o.h.bush@gmail.com

I find it amusing that those who are bleating because Bush didn't select a known contructionist are also complaining because she hasn't been a judge. The founding fathers apparently didn't think it was necessary to reserve SCOTUS appointments for members of the legal industry.

As to interpreting the drivel that comes out of Congress, just give me a good critical thinker, esteemed member of the bar, or not.

Yeah lets look at some of them: Brandeis, Murphy, Goldberg, Warren, Douglas. See a pattern?

Not "Ed" but ed:

What concerns you about Roberts?

In my opinion, his liberal critics don't understand the constitutionaly prescribed role of the Supreme Court.

What are the conservative criticisms? --and how can they be reconciled with the role of the court?

Hmmmm.

"What concerns you about Roberts?"

Roberts is supposed to be a solid conservative. Yet when he was questioned he stated emphatically that all of the work he did as a lawyer, in furtherance of conservative issues, was on behalf of his clients and did NOT reflect his own beliefs.

Roberts is supposed to be a solid conservative. Yet Roberts has *never*, not once, ever chosen to support a conservative issue by way of pro bono work. On the other hand Roberts has several times supported liberal groups with pro bono work.

If you can find me any instances of where Roberts, when given a free choice, has supported conservatives then please list them. All of the ones I've been able to find were when he was acting as a lawyer on his client's behalf.

This does NOT scream "conservative" to me.

Please tell me that Cousin Oliver's comments were intended as humor/parody.