Non-lawyers on the Supreme Court

[Blair]

I was curious what peoples thoughts were on the recent change which means that every current and future Supreme Court Justice is a broadly an former white collar lawyer who does a short stint on the federal circuit?

Is there anything being missed from not having either former politicians or a wider array of people on the court?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't think a non-lawyer has ever been on the Supreme Court. Even former politicians on it have still had law degrees.

However this wouldn't be illegal to appoint one. There aren't any constitutional requirements. In fact a non-US citizen could even thereotically be appointed to the Supreme Court.

[politicallefty]

FDR's second appointment, Stanley Reed, attended but did not graduate law school.

I personally think it would be a good thing if the "reading the law" model could be reestablished in some way.

[Donerail]

FDR's second appointment, Stanley Reed, attended but did not graduate law school.

I personally think it would be a good thing if the "reading the law" model could be reestablished in some way.

Still exists in several states—Kim Kardashian is "reading the law" right now. The bar pass rates for attorneys who do it are negligible, and employment options are consequently very poor. They got rid of it for a reason.

[Benjamin Frank]

One thing I've been thinking of, not just for the United States, that I don't think could be unconstitutional, is a permanent advisory council for the Supreme Court made up of economists, political scientists, historians, scientists and whoever else that would be necessary to advise on Supreme Court cases.

This would obviously have a political component, as President Biden would appoint all of the initial permanent advisors, but I think it's also necessary for public governance purposes. Although this is more that I've seen from Canada, I've read recent Canadian Supreme court decisions where the arguments on the economics behind the rulings are absurdly wrong on economic theory.

The current United States Supreme Court seems determined to view 18th and 19th century history as all that matters to decide their rulings, but, similarly, their understanding of history is often just bad.

[MaxQue]

One thing I've been thinking of, not just for the United States, that I don't think could be unconstitutional, is a permanent advisory council for the Supreme Court made up of economists, political scientists, historians, scientists and whoever else that would be necessary to advise on Supreme Court cases.

This would obviously have a political component, as President Biden would appoint all of the initial permanent advisors, but I think it's also necessary for public governance purposes. Although this is more that I've seen from Canada, I've read recent Canadian Supreme court decisions where the arguments on the economics behind the rulings are absurdly wrong on economic theory.

The current United States Supreme Court seems determined to view 18th and 19th century history as all that matters to decide their rulings, but, similarly, their understanding of history is often just bad.

As economic theory is pablum that be twisted to fit the narritive you want, there is no such thing as "being wrong on economic theory".

[Donerail]

Economic theory, like history and science, will always be neatly packaged and presented to the justices by the litigants in a way that supports all possible outcomes. The "advisory council" may not be unconstitutional, but it's deeply contrary to the American model of litigation — the judge's job is not to consult with a council to independently determine how the economy works, it's to listen to the litigants and make a decision based on the law.

[Benjamin Frank]

One thing I've been thinking of, not just for the United States, that I don't think could be unconstitutional, is a permanent advisory council for the Supreme Court made up of economists, political scientists, historians, scientists and whoever else that would be necessary to advise on Supreme Court cases.

This would obviously have a political component, as President Biden would appoint all of the initial permanent advisors, but I think it's also necessary for public governance purposes. Although this is more that I've seen from Canada, I've read recent Canadian Supreme court decisions where the arguments on the economics behind the rulings are absurdly wrong on economic theory.

The current United States Supreme Court seems determined to view 18th and 19th century history as all that matters to decide their rulings, but, similarly, their understanding of history is often just bad.

As economic theory is pablum that be twisted to fit the narritive you want, there is no such thing as "being wrong on economic theory".

I'm sorry, but that's simply absurd.

[Benjamin Frank]

Economic theory, like history and science, will always be neatly packaged and presented to the justices by the litigants in a way that supports all possible outcomes. The "advisory council" may not be unconstitutional, but it's deeply contrary to the American model of litigation — the judge's job is not to consult with a council to independently determine how the economy works, it's to listen to the litigants and make a decision based on the law.

Judicial decisions have real life consequences for actual people. This isn't some academic legal exercise as this Supreme Court, at best, thinks it is.

[Del Tachi]

One thing I've been thinking of, not just for the United States, that I don't think could be unconstitutional, is a permanent advisory council for the Supreme Court made up of economists, political scientists, historians, scientists and whoever else that would be necessary to advise on Supreme Court cases.

This would obviously have a political component, as President Biden would appoint all of the initial permanent advisors, but I think it's also necessary for public governance purposes. Although this is more that I've seen from Canada, I've read recent Canadian Supreme court decisions where the arguments on the economics behind the rulings are absurdly wrong on economic theory.

The current United States Supreme Court seems determined to view 18th and 19th century history as all that matters to decide their rulings, but, similarly, their understanding of history is often just bad.

If the Supreme Court needs an "advisory council" it should be drawn up from random citizens, not experts. 

[Benjamin Frank]

One thing I've been thinking of, not just for the United States, that I don't think could be unconstitutional, is a permanent advisory council for the Supreme Court made up of economists, political scientists, historians, scientists and whoever else that would be necessary to advise on Supreme Court cases.

This would obviously have a political component, as President Biden would appoint all of the initial permanent advisors, but I think it's also necessary for public governance purposes. Although this is more that I've seen from Canada, I've read recent Canadian Supreme court decisions where the arguments on the economics behind the rulings are absurdly wrong on economic theory.

The current United States Supreme Court seems determined to view 18th and 19th century history as all that matters to decide their rulings, but, similarly, their understanding of history is often just bad.

If the Supreme Court needs an "advisory council" it should be drawn up from random citizens, not experts. 

I don't have a problem with that, or with a mix. The problem with the U.S judiciary is that the lawyers in robes actually seem to take their abstract B.S judicial 'philosophies' seriously.  Random citizens reminding them that their rulings have consequences that effect real people would be a good thing.

[Donerail]

Economic theory, like history and science, will always be neatly packaged and presented to the justices by the litigants in a way that supports all possible outcomes. The "advisory council" may not be unconstitutional, but it's deeply contrary to the American model of litigation — the judge's job is not to consult with a council to independently determine how the economy works, it's to listen to the litigants and make a decision based on the law.

Judicial decisions have real life consequences for actual people. This isn't some academic legal exercise as this Supreme Court, at best, thinks it is.

Get better lawyers then.

[Benjamin Frank]

Economic theory, like history and science, will always be neatly packaged and presented to the justices by the litigants in a way that supports all possible outcomes. The "advisory council" may not be unconstitutional, but it's deeply contrary to the American model of litigation — the judge's job is not to consult with a council to independently determine how the economy works, it's to listen to the litigants and make a decision based on the law.

Judicial decisions have real life consequences for actual people. This isn't some academic legal exercise as this Supreme Court, at best, thinks it is.

Get better lawyers then.

Lawyers generally aren't economists, scientists or historians (as much as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have pretensions of being historians), this Supreme Court especially doesn't understand the intricacies of these things. If lawyers can have pretensions of being experts in these areas, then it stands to reason that economists, scientists, historians, political science... should also be allowed to practice as lawyers and get appointed to the courts, including the Supreme Court.

(By 'this Supreme Court' I'm referring to the Canadian Supreme Court as well.)

[satsuma]

I'm more open to the other branches needing more non-lawyers and leaving the courts as the specialist domain of lawyers. To even understand what's going on in court makes you kind of a lawyer, so you'd just be a lawyer in addition to having past experience in another domain. A legislator might need some legal help to make sure their laws are written well, but they'd be better off having varied life experience to draw ideas and connections from.

[SteveRogers]

One thing I've been thinking of, not just for the United States, that I don't think could be unconstitutional, is a permanent advisory council for the Supreme Court made up of economists, political scientists, historians, scientists and whoever else that would be necessary to advise on Supreme Court cases.

This would obviously have a political component, as President Biden would appoint all of the initial permanent advisors, but I think it's also necessary for public governance purposes. Although this is more that I've seen from Canada, I've read recent Canadian Supreme court decisions where the arguments on the economics behind the rulings are absurdly wrong on economic theory.

The current United States Supreme Court seems determined to view 18th and 19th century history as all that matters to decide their rulings, but, similarly, their understanding of history is often just bad.

The type of advisors that you’re talking can be called to testify as expert witnesses in an initial trial if their expertise is relevant to the case. The Supreme Court is neither a trial court* nor an evidentiary fact-finding body. It is the appellate court of last resort and as such it’s job is settle questions of law.

*outside of SCOTUS’s extremely limited original jurisdiction.

[Benjamin Frank]

One thing I've been thinking of, not just for the United States, that I don't think could be unconstitutional, is a permanent advisory council for the Supreme Court made up of economists, political scientists, historians, scientists and whoever else that would be necessary to advise on Supreme Court cases.

This would obviously have a political component, as President Biden would appoint all of the initial permanent advisors, but I think it's also necessary for public governance purposes. Although this is more that I've seen from Canada, I've read recent Canadian Supreme court decisions where the arguments on the economics behind the rulings are absurdly wrong on economic theory.

The current United States Supreme Court seems determined to view 18th and 19th century history as all that matters to decide their rulings, but, similarly, their understanding of history is often just bad.

The type of advisors that you’re talking can be called to testify as expert witnesses in an initial trial if their expertise is relevant to the case. The Supreme Court is neither a trial court* nor an evidentiary fact-finding body. It is the appellate court of last resort and as such it’s job is settle questions of law.

*outside of SCOTUS’s extremely limited original jurisdiction.

So what?

This Supreme Court has demonstrated a very poor understanding of 18th and 19th century history even though it seems to regard it as all that matters when it comes to deciding matters of law.

There is absolutely no need to be hidebound by outdated tradition as, for instance, even this Supreme Court has made it clear it doesn't care about precedent.

The Supreme Court Justices are not a group of all knowing oracles. They are lawyers in robes who have demonstrated little knowledge on anything outside of their useless and pointless judicial philosophies. A little real world expertise and common knowledge might do a world of good to educate this group of know nothings.

Especially given this Supreme Court, it seems clear that 'it's been this way for 200+ years' is nothing but an appeal to tradition and is not a rational argument.