The weird part is that we've somehow as a society gotten to the point where 2 years of clerking, 3 years of practice, and 3 years as an appellate judge is suddenly adequate qualification for the highest court we have

It's like affirmative action for the religious right
All the sycophants going "Amy Covid Barrett is highly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court!"

And I'm just sitting here thinking "a résumé that thin won't even get you elected to the Court of Appeals in most states"
She was only a practicing lawyer for 3 years – she then had 5 years in a judicial role (2 writing opinions as a clerk and 3 as a judge), and spent the rest of her career teaching (which is all well ans good but not SCOTUS-relevant IMO)
Maybe being in a state where we elect our judges has skewed my thinking, idk
I mean let's go through North Carolina's Supreme Court justices for comparison

Before first joining the NC Supreme Court, our Chief Justice Cheri Beasley had:
➡️ 8 years as a public defender
➡️ 9 years as a District Court Judge
➡️ 4 years on the NC Court of Appeals
Before first joining the Supreme Court, Justice Paul Newby had:
➡️ 4 years in private practice
➡️ 1 year in-house counsel
➡️ 19 years as an Assistant US Attorney

Justice Robin Hudson had:
➡️ 24 years in private practice
➡️ 5 years on the NC Court of Appeals
Before first joining the Supreme Court, Justice Sam Ervin IV had:
➡️ 18 years in private practice
➡️ 9 years on the state utility commission (a quasi-judicial body)
Before first joining the Supreme Court, Justice Michael Morgan had:
➡️ 10 years in the Department of Justice
➡️ 5 years as an Administrative Law Judge
➡️ 10 years as a District Court Judge
➡️ 12 years as a Superior Court Judge
Before first joining the Supreme Court, Justice Anita Earls had:
➡️ 10 years in private practice
➡️ 2 years in the US Department of Justice
➡️ 17 years in public interest practice
Before first joining the Supreme Court, Justice Mark Davis had:
➡️ 13 years in private practice
➡️ 5 years in the Department of Justice
➡️ 2 years as General Counsel to the Governor
➡️ 6 years on the NC Court of Appeals
By contrast, Amy Covid Barrett – being nominated to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court of the entire United States – has:

➡️ 2 years as a law clerk
➡️ 3 years private practice
➡️ 3 years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
➡️ 2 years as a law clerk
➡️ 2 years in private practice
➡️ 1 year special counsel to the US Senate
➡️ 2 years as Associate White House Counsel
➡️ 3 years as Deputy Director for the Domestic Policy Council
➡️ 1 year as Solicitor General
I wasn't a fan of Kagan's credentials, but even she had a longer resume than Barrett
It varies; Newby, Hudson, Ervin, Morgan, and Earls were all elected first, while Beasley and Davis were appointed and then ran for re-election
I'd say Gorsuch / Sotomayor / Roberts are the top 3 (in no particular order). Kagan and Breyer together. Then the rest.
IMO appellate experience isn't experience if you haven't either been a practicing lawyer at the trial level or been a trial-level judge. Blows my mind how little some appellate judges know about trial level basics – errors in which they're expected to rule on coherently
There are no qualifications in the Constitution for a Supreme Court Justice – they don't even have to be a lawyer or law school graduate

Congress setting statutory minimum qualifications would like be struck down for violating separation of powers though, I suspect
I find it very weird that she and Gorsuch are the two I most enjoy reading
Without tangible practice experience, I don't think law teaching is helpful for a Supreme Court Justice
Prior tweet said with the requisite apologies to my law professor friends / mentors / former teachers 😂

There is immense value to practitioners in legal scholarship. But without seeing how precedent gets applied, you end up w/ sh*t like the Good Faith Exception to 4A, or QI
Same concept but different rationale; US Term Limits was a Supremacy Clause case IIRC
Descended from, yes – that Sam Ervin's grandson is on the NC Supreme Court

(And still more qualified than the current SCOTUS nominee!)
Frankly I don't actually know; pretty sure all of my professors had practice experience so I've not been taught by someone who didn't

But there's a world of difference between the top-tier law schools and the rest of us
In terms of practical experience, I agree

In terms of his slavish obedience to police and finding no misconduct he wouldn't excuse, no
Yes. 13 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, plus 8 years as a lawyer and 2 years as a clerk in addition to her teaching experience
SCOTUS justices should be limited to 18 years, staggered so there is one vacancy every odd-numbered year

I'm open to different approaches for the lower courts
I'm not sure "she's at least as qualified as Democrats' last minimally-qualified justice!" is a compelling argument

Doubly so when it's not actually true
There is some academic discussion that this would be a way to enforce SCOTUS term limits without a constitutional amendment: after X years on the SCOTUS bench, they then get moved to help the appellate or district courts
I agree, but big part of that requires Congress to start acting like a legislative branch
Rehnquist had 1 year as a law clerk, 16 years in private practice, and 2 years in the Office of Legal Counsel before joining the Supreme Court

Warren had 3 years in private practice, 1 year as a city attorney, 18 years as a prosecutor, and 4 years as Attorney General

Try again.
I already addressed the uselessness of appellate-only "bench experience" earlier in the thread

Tweet less. Read more.

Try again. Do better.
Different people have different reasons for disliking

Mine is that she's the experiential equivalent of an 8th year lawyer – would literally anyone hire an 8th year to run a big city law firm? Of course not
Already addressed Kagan's experience – multiple times – in the thread

"But at least she's got a little appellate judging experience to make up for the fact she's somehow even less experienced than the Democrats' least-experienced appointee!" is a weird flex
People do tend to "scream rape" when sexual predators get nominated, yes
Imagine tweeting out "the only male Republicans we have to nominate to the Supreme Court would be credibly accused of sexual impropriety" thinking you were owning the libs

Especially after Gorsuch, who as I recall had no such allegations against him

A lot of anti-Trump folks – me included – would love to see Willett on SCOTUS
I don't think the Senate would get anyone confirmed in a midterm election year tbh
A judge who can't even fill out disclosure paperwork competently?

1️⃣ The ABA doesn't appoint judges, so I don't particularly care about their ratings

2️⃣ Yes, she is
Republicans crack me up suddenly caring about ABA ratings that they've spent the past however many decades railing against 😂 🤦‍♂️
It's all theater

Tedious theater from people smart enough to know better, but theater just the same
Yep. The ratings only matter when they think it helps them politically
She's basically an 8th year lawyer

I'm also an 8th year lawyer – and while I confess to having an outlandishly oversized ego, I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm qualified for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States
I'd have to recuse myself from everything because I tweeted about it at some point 😂
Short answer is no one knows for sure

Federal judges, including SCOTUS justices, can't be removed from office except via impeachment + removal. But there is a school of thought that they can be "demoted," similar to "senior status" of lower court judges

I'm skeptical, but idk
My thought is well. There's a long list of amply qualified options, and they picked this one instead
You can follow @greg_doucette.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: