Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

What qualifies a person to sit on the highest court in the land?

I was reading that Elena Kagan (sp?) has no experience on any court, but in her defense, she gave out coffee and tampons at Harvard and likes a good grinding game of basketball. I would have thought that to be on the Supreme Court, one would need some, uh, judicial experience. Apparently I am wrong. Hey, I like hiking and water-skiing and I brought donuts to class. Maybe I am qualified!

 
Iamgr8teful

Asked by Iamgr8teful at 1:41 PM on May. 14, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 25 (23,279 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (27)
  • So...

    She has researched law,
    written about law,
    and taught about law

    ...for most of her career.

    She has been an actual lawyer for about year. And how she obtained that position was interesting, too.

    ***
    If I didn't know any better I would say you were talking about Obama! LOL (substitute "she" for "he")
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 10:03 AM on May. 15, 2010

  • I'm not sure but some kind of court experience is needed because of the paperwork they do and breifs they write. I mostly think they just have to have a healthy respect for the constitution. Unfortunately that matters little to this administration.
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 1:48 PM on May. 14, 2010

  • Based on the historical make up of the court, all you need is a piece of paper that says Harvard.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:53 PM on May. 14, 2010

  • you rockoooh and NP gets the prize! That is a perfect answer Lady

    mamakirs

    Answer by mamakirs at 1:57 PM on May. 14, 2010

  • From what I understand she has had very little experience.
    TBandNCmommy

    Answer by TBandNCmommy at 1:59 PM on May. 14, 2010

  • 40% of them don't have judicial experience, and they have done well!
    older

    Answer by older at 2:32 PM on May. 14, 2010

  • 40% of them don't have judicial experience, and they have done well!

    Just for my own amusement, which specific ones didn't have experience and what specific decisions did they write that caused you to consider them to do their job well?
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 2:38 PM on May. 14, 2010

  • LEGAL experience, but not necessarily judicial. William Rehnquist and Earl Warren had NO experience as judges, but both served as Chief Justice.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 2:39 PM on May. 14, 2010

  • But she has extremely little legal experience. She's been a law professor for the vast majority of her career, hasn't she?
    May-20

    Answer by May-20 at 2:48 PM on May. 14, 2010

  • NP, when the selection of Kagan was announced I also remember hearing on the radio that selecting judges for the high court was actually a fairly new phenomenon...at least new in the terms of the history of this country.

    I'm doing a little reading. Chief Justices who were not judges:

    John Jay, Roger Taney, Salmon P. Chase, Morrison Waite, Melville Fuller, Charles Evans Hughes, Harlan Stone, Earl Warren, William Rehnquist.

    Kind of interesting...John Roberts is only our 17th Chief Justice. Out of all of them, nine were not judges prior to being appointed to the high court.

    Amazing to think that in our country's history there have only been 17 Chief Justices!

    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 2:55 PM on May. 14, 2010

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN