There are two reasons. One is political and therefore the primary reason, the second is more neutral and pragmatic (and therefore less the reason). First, when people want experience from a judge, they mean they want a track record so they can predict the way the judge will vote. Remember, when asked if he had any regrets as President, Eisenhower pointed to the Supreme Court building and said "Yeah, they're both sitting in there." He had though Warren would be conservative but he oversaw the most progressive period of the Supreme Court. Politicians want a history so they can predict where the court will go. Second, do you really not see a problem with someone who has NEVER overseen a case or written an opinion before being on the HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND??? All she's done is work as a litigator for civil cases. She doesn't have a strong grounding in constituational law, she isn't familiar with how to interact with a large court, and she certainly doesn't have a real understanding of how her ruling will proceed. The issues she's voting on and the opinions she gives will LITERALLY shape our current laws as well as future ones via case law. I damn well would want a justice to fully appreciate those ramificatiions and know how to properly rule in kind. You wouldn't just pick a farmer to start drafting farm legislation. He wouldn't have the experience. Neither should you let a lottery supervisor become a supervisor of the bill of rights.
Both points well-taken. The first, being actually just a political euphemism, isn't any sort of real reason at all is it? I understand that it's what really drives the debate and ultimately the decision, but it is simply ground for partisanship and not very valid in its own right. The second, I concede, can cause some initial confusion. But, I'm not sure how much of a problem it will really be. She's not the Chief so she'll have the chance to ease in a bit more slowly. Plus, she'd have the advice of colleagues and staff to help her as she gets her feet wet. Her grounding in constitutional law is more troubling, but is a separate issue from the one I asked about. In fact, I'd like to divorce the question from Miers; I'm not endorsing her in any way. I'm just trying to see if there is a valid reason why we'd look for judge experience in the candidates. Folks weren't making quite these arguments when Roberts was nominated because he had plenty of experience with the SC even if his judge experience was scant.
How to get appointed to the Supreme Court? Why go to the right church. Obviously... So today we find out that the major criteria for getting appointed to the Supreme Court, according to Bush, is how religious you are! That is sooooo HAWT!
"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic." -- John F. Kennedy And now, 45 or so years later, we have Mr. Bush nominating Ms. Miers explicitly out of respect for, not without regard to, her religious beliefs. How would this have played? "I am not the Democratic Party's candidate for President. I am the Catholic church's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Democrat."
Not really. The trial judge decides questions of law (and in certain instances questions of fact) Roughly, the appellate courts then either reviews the decision "de novo" and apply essentially the exact same tests the trial court did and see what they come up with, or under an "abuse of discretion" standard, which is essentially gives the lower court more latitude. Either way, they decide questions of law based on 1. the available statutory and case law & other supporting materials and 2. the factual record. There are certainly stylistic differences when you read or write a trial court opinion and an appellate court one, but the skill set each requires is identical. Anyway- your argument misses the key point that most SC Justices served on federal appellate courts or state supreme courts - whose jobs are almost idenctical to the US supreme court even more so than TC judges.
