No judicial experience is the disqualifying factor. The principal job of a supreme court justice is to write judicial opinions with the type of legal analysis that will withstand the scrutiny of her peers on the Supreme Court and will earn the respect of the judicial community.
How about we get a common citizen on the US Supreme Court? Someone with common sense to say "how will this affect all Americans", not someone who has been part of the system for decades.
Someone like me!
No, it's not a disqualification. She's a lawyer (as a matter of fact, I don't know for sure you even have to BE a lawyer to qualify for the USSC). The purpose of being on the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution as it apples to various cases. She must have been pretty good at her job or she wouldn't have been selected to be the head of the Texas Bar Association.
I'm looking for a strict constructionist. If someone is a strict constructionist that's all we need because if it's not written in the constitution, it's not covered. PERIOD.
Many USSC justices had no prior judicial experience. Rehnquist, Warren, many others.