[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Actually I am all for appointing some non-attorneys to SCOTUS.

That institution must be broken out of its groupthink bubble.

I think Justice Scalia rejected that idea. His point was that laymen such as you and I think of SCOTUS justices as either philosopher king wannabes, or not philosopher king wannabes. But on a daily, hourly basis, the job is legal work, for which legal training is essential for effectiveness.

Maybe you could name an autodidact who would learn anything and do any job well. Thomas Sowell, for example. But it would be a problem until he got up to speed (and Sowell himself is in his late eighties).

[editor-surveyor]

.
Legal training may be necessary for the proper writing of opinions, but it is an impediment to the job of the supreme court judge.

The constitution is written in plain clear language, and any law not so written should be rejected by the court as contrary to the principles of this nation.
.