[longtermmemmory]

Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

[Servant of the 9]

Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

Yes, and I think it is a mistake not to always have a couple of non-lawyers there, just to inject a little reality.

So9

[Gorjus]

You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

Exactly! The most important words in the Constitution are, "We, the People.. You shouldn't have to be a specialist in law to understand the People's contract with ourselves.

If I could make any changes I wanted in the Constitution, I'd require that the Chief Justice be a lawyer who had practiced law as both attorney and judge, but I'd also make it so that not more than one more Justice could even have a law degree. Their decisions should be based on what "We, the People.." would decide, not a specialized and non-representative, self-styled 'elite.'

Of course, that's not the first thing I'd change. (*smile*)

[proud American in Canada]

"Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court."

True enough, but that mistake (a common misconception, btw), only provides more support to the thesis.

[CA Conservative]

Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

I don't think that is the writer's point. He/she makes more of the issue that Billy Jeff would have to deal with the whole impeachment/license suspension/disbarment issue in very public hearings, and would still not have a chance to be confirmed. The Pubbies could righteously point to these issues as grounds for rejecting his nomination, so why put himself through the publim humiliation?

[Non-Sequitur]

Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

Name a justice who wasn't.