FUTURE WORLD, Tulsa (11/6/2009 8:42:16 PM)

I guess Corvetteguy is saying a non lawyer would not follow presidence in the law and would rule indifferent to established rulings and law. If so, the court would become a nightmare. And citizens as a whole would have no reliance or expectation of justice under the law. stare decisis

Ignatz, A nice place where Democrats hold every office in the County. (11/6/2009 8:31:19 PM)

If not for the fact that the doctrine of stare decisis is set in stone and one would have to be able to decipher lawyer talk to figure out how past decisions figured into current considerations I would be all for appointing non-lawyer folks who have displayed exceptional knowledge of the Constitution and interest in upholding its principles.

Red Ryder, (11/6/2009 12:26:39 PM)

Corvetteguy: One may not be required to be an attorney to be appointed to the US Supreme Court, but one DOES have to be confirmed by the US Senate. Use your brain. I don't care whether the Senate is controlled by Republicans or Democrats, no non-attorney is EVER going to be appointed to the US Supreme Court.

Corvetteguy, Tulsa (11/6/2009 12:19:39 PM)

It's a shame you can't name non-lawyers to these judicial posts. They would be so much more likely to be fair and honest.

One does NOT have to be a lawyer to be named to the United States Supreme Court.
There's rumors that President Obama is considering Reverend Al Sharton as the next appointee to the Supreme Court. I heard that on conservative talk radio...

Corvetteguy, Tulsa (11/6/2009 1:59:45 PM)

Ok Red Ryder, but don't shhot the messenger...

Although not required by the Constitution, all 110 members of the US Supreme Court have been lawyers, although not all attended or graduated law school. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the United States had few law schools, so a person who wanted to become a lawyer would read about the law and then apprentice under a practicing attorney.

Levi Woodbury (1845-1851) was the first justice to graduate law school (Litchfield Law School, now defunct).

Stanley Forman Reed (1938-1957) was the last justice to serve without a law degree.

Corvetteguy, Tulsa (11/6/2009 2:28:31 PM)

This idjit is remembering that only 25 out of the 42 US Presidents have also been lawyers.

They reply on assistants and advisors, exactly as appellate court justices do.

Corvetteguy, Tulsa (11/7/2009 11:34:50 AM)

FUTURE WORLD,

come on,...you're a smart person..

I'm saying that a non-lawyer, after being briefed on case law, the same type of briefing that even the current sitting members of the US Supreme Court freely admit to,...
might just use common-sense decision making. You know,....old fashion "right or wrong". Past presidence is important,...but some past rulings were very, very wrong. Look at the past record of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Want to follow that past presidence of reversed-racism?

Common sense law....Just that old silly notion that this nation was founded on.

What do I know, however. I can barely spell "lawyer".

Republicator, (11/6/2009 2:00:50 PM)

A non-lawyer's head would spin all day if they tried to figure this stuff out. Dont be an idjit.

confederateU, (11/6/2009 3:14:20 PM)

i just hope it's not another liberal whack on another appeals bench!

the anti-rube, (11/6/2009 4:39:11 PM)

"There's rumors that President Obama is considering Reverend Al Sharton as the next appointee to the Supreme Court. I heard that on conservative talk radio... "

Please tell me you didn't for a minute think there was even a 1% chance of this being true.

And while I know that conservatives who know of 2, maybe 3, court decisions like to scream "activist judge liberal whackjobs!," everyone should remember that according to the empirical evidence (ya know, numbers and stuff), the Rehnquist and Burger Courts (both conservative), were the biggest "judicial activist" Courts in American history. I know it's easy to point at Roe v. Wade and say "liberal judges want to enforce their opinion instead of the law," but the reality is conservatives substitute their opinion for the law much, much more than liberal judges.

Again, that's just according to the actual numbers.

DowntownDan, Tulsa (11/6/2009 1:40:36 PM)

Maybe the local hospital should appoint a non-doctor as chief of surgery. Makes about as much sense.