No Experience Required

Thomas you're correct, except that there is no experience required, nor does the constitution place any restrictions beyond concensus on the appointment of justices.  In fact the experience of the individual, and the President making the noimination are both expected to play into the selection.  Still a concensus vote of the Senate is required to complete the confirmation process.  "WRONG" decisions are not possible,  but decisions granting greater or lesser power to Federal or State government or the people are expected.  Right and wrong under those conditions is a JUDGEMENT call, that's why Judges are called JUDGES.

True enough for "judges" -- but on the Supreme Court, the title is "Justice" and I don't think it is unintentional.

The notion that a Supreme Court Justice's experience should have no bearing on his or her decisions is based on the principle that the judge should judge the facts of the case itself, not the facts of his or her own life.  If, for example, someone comes to the court with a problem related to asbestos, it should not matter if the judge had worked with asbestos in the past, or had been a smoker, or nearly got run over by a taxi the week before.

Decisions are not made on a unanimous basis because different people view the facts of the case differently; they weight the facts of the case differently; they just plain reason differently.  But their reasoning is based on the facts of the case, not what they had for lunch that day.  Their decisions are based on "interpretations of the law" but they are not straight forward because the law is not straight forward.

Since I deny that the notion of the interpretation of the law is a "misrepresentation of reality" I reject your implication of "multiple instances of those who seemed to prefer governing our country by 'misrepresentation of reality.'"  Actually that seems quite McCarthy like as an allegation.  Ask yourself whether such types of debate through unsupported allegations has ever served us well.

Apparently the way I wrote that sentence can be interpreted more than one way.  Perhaps better would have been:

The pretense that interpreting the law is simple and straightforward is a misrepresentation of reality.

Sorry.

Christopher B. are you <b>seriously</b> asserting that the description "seemed to prefer governing our country by 'misrepresentation of reality'" has never accurately applied to our leaders -- and that my suggesting otherwise is "McCarthy like"?  McCarthy himself would seem to be a notable example of one who misrepresented reality.

"The pretense that interpreting the law is simple and straightforward is a misrepresentation of reality."  I'll still disagree.  I would say that it is an oversimplification and often an approximation at best but I would not suggest that is misrepresents reality.

The McCarthy aspect is basically summed up in the argument, "This is an X.  I have a list here of all things similar to X.  No I am not going to actually show you the list so you can see how they are not similar."

What list do you WANT? 

- Teapot Dome

- Tonkin Gulf Resolution

- Watergate

- Iran-Contra Affair

- Saddam's nonexistent WMDs and links to al Qaeda

This ground has been plowed

Cases that get to the Supreme Court have (nearly always) already been adjudicated in one or more lower courts.  The facts in the case have already been considered by other judges, and the criteria used to qualify a case to be heard by the Supremes, while not crisply definable, generally concern cases with conflicting legal issues.  Thus, to say that they consider only the "facts" is misleading.  Anyone who has observed the Court knows that politics plays a huge role in their decisions.  The court is evenly divided between the Right Wing bloc of Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, balanced by the liberal bloc of Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer.  Kennedy is the "swing" vote who decides many cases.  Are these people all only influenced by the "facts" in the cases they hear?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

I'm going to add this to yours, Bert, as I understand things similarly.

Appellate courts do not adjudicate the "facts of the case" -- that is for the lower courts. If it appears a "fact" is missing or largely misrepresented, appellate courts tend to remand for review on the lower court level.

Appellate courts review the application of the law, protection of accused and victim(s), and the standards/precidents that were/should have been considered in the decision and sentencing.

IMHO this means a check-and-balance on whether the law was correctly applied, that the law applied was consistent with the Constitution, and that no additional precident is needed (if so, it is formulated) to give guidance for future cases of this type.

Absolutely agree, Thomas.  If laws were written clearly where no interpretation was required, we would not even need judges, nor juries.  To state otherwise is naive and simplistic, and unrealistic.  Just look at the recent strip-search decision and comments by male vs. female members of the court.  It is in the understanding of the 'facts of the case' and the law's extent that personal experience and viewpoint come into play. 

If the law is clear on a certain case, the Supreme Court is very unlikely to consider it at all.  It is only where the law is unclear that its judgments are required.  Thus, experience is absolutely fundamental (along with good sense and a level head).

Well said, and my point exactly.  

Any group is not only strengthened by the depth of experience of its members, but is also limited to the extent that their experience lacks breadth.  Thus, the greater variety of experience within a group, the more likely they are to consider dimensions of questions that more homogeneous groups would overlook.

Despite the best intentions, the more homogeneous a group, the more subject to groupthink. 

Consider me in full agreement.

Maybe you have hit upon the explanation of Palin as VP nominee, Thomas!  Experience is apparently NOT a pre-requisite for successful leadership for Republicans. 

Do you want to have a discussion on the "Experience" of Obama?  At least Palin was a governor!  Obama barely became a senator when he started going full time (on the people's payroll) as a presidential candidate.  How about the "Intelligence" of Biden?  (Ah yes those great stories of FDR and cable television and ...)

Sheryl, I wouldn't ascribe that to the GOP in general, despite the Bush administration's seeming preference for unquestioning loyalty over competence.

For the country's sake, I keep hoping that responsible captains of industry and military commanders -- folks who KNOW the difference between Leadership and management -- will roll up their sleeves and rebuild a party based on good, old-fashioned conservative values (and by these I do NOT mean the silly litmus tests that too often pass for "values" nowadays).

I hope for this because I believe we are ill-served when either party loses influence to the point where they accept a minor role -- complaining and obstructing initiatives -- and feel under no obligation to supply ideas of their own. 

Seriously, Christopher?  A not-even-one-term governor who quits mid-term?  Someone who flunked out of fourth-rate colleges?  And you honestly expect me to consider that in an argument in regards to experience and intelligence? 

Say what you will about Biden - he has served many years in high positions with intelligence and honor.  I'm sorry if he doesn't rise to the 'speaking' standards of one such as Palin. 

Jesus, I cannot even believe that I am having this conversation with someone who can type and spell on a computer.  It really goes to show how brain-washed people can become, so that they lose all sight of reasoning and critical thinking.

> At least Palin was a governor!

So was Rod Blagojevich. 

The operative word: "was"

Yes, Thomas, I agree.  I was a registered Republican for years - one who believed in fiscal responsibility.  But, I have always been progressive in my social views.  I find the entire highjacking of the Republican Party by religious zealots and neo-con imbeciles totally insulting.  On top of that, for a party of 'family values' they have become the poster children for adultery and greed. 

Christopher...Do you really want to talk about Palin's "experience" vs. Obama's?

Obama was a Senator from Illinois, a major industrial state which includes the city of Chicago.  Tell me about Palin's experience in Alaska.  Then tell me about her academic background.  Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, was elected President of the Harvard Law Review, and taught Constitutional Law.  Tell me about Palin's background.

Nah, don't bother.  I already know it and so do you.  It's a joke.