"un or under-qualified members to avoid having to answer questions about their judicial records"
Huh?
I call bullshit. How is she unqualified or underqualified? (and understand, I'm not sure how I feel about her, but I really don't think anyone with a basic knowledge of how the judicial system works can argue that she's UN-qualified or UNDER-qualified).
If it's because she hasn't ever served on the judiciary, well, you should know as a law student that past judicial service isn't necessarily a prerequisite. Past SCOTUS justices who had not previously served as judges include: Powell, Byron White, Rehnquist, and Warren.
Her lack of prior judicial service or published writing does make it harder to determine how she would rule in the future, but it doesn't mean that she's not qualified. She clearly has years and years of experience practicing law and arguing cases, working through the legal analysis that she will need to do on the bench.
A lot of nonlawyers assume that there's some gaping maw of experience between a judge and a lawyer -- but you, as a law student, should know that the legal analysis is the same whether you're arguing one side or evaluating both sides. Years of experience litigating is years of experience litigating. She knows how the system works; she knows how read the holdings of specific cases and apply them.
If it's because she's a SMU law grad who wasn't on law review rather than a fancy-schmancy Harvard/Yale/Stanford grad .... well, I don't think much of that argument either.
no subject
Huh?
I call bullshit. How is she unqualified or underqualified? (and understand, I'm not sure how I feel about her, but I really don't think anyone with a basic knowledge of how the judicial system works can argue that she's UN-qualified or UNDER-qualified).
If it's because she hasn't ever served on the judiciary, well, you should know as a law student that past judicial service isn't necessarily a prerequisite. Past SCOTUS justices who had not previously served as judges include: Powell, Byron White, Rehnquist, and Warren.
Her lack of prior judicial service or published writing does make it harder to determine how she would rule in the future, but it doesn't mean that she's not qualified. She clearly has years and years of experience practicing law and arguing cases, working through the legal analysis that she will need to do on the bench.
A lot of nonlawyers assume that there's some gaping maw of experience between a judge and a lawyer -- but you, as a law student, should know that the legal analysis is the same whether you're arguing one side or evaluating both sides. Years of experience litigating is years of experience litigating. She knows how the system works; she knows how read the holdings of specific cases and apply them.
If it's because she's a SMU law grad who wasn't on law review rather than a fancy-schmancy Harvard/Yale/Stanford grad .... well, I don't think much of that argument either.