Again, from a technical standpoint are there restrictions on appointments to the supreme court and/or federal judiciary? Obviously, from a practical standpoint, a judge or lawyer is preferred and some states do have legislation on this subject. However, I was wondering about the feds.
Thanks.
2007-10-14 10:02:23 · 9 answers · asked by l s 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Again, from a technical standpoint are there restrictions on appointments to the supreme court and/or federal judiciary? Obviously, from a practical standpoint, a judge or lawyer is preferred and some states do have legislation on this subject. However, I was wondering about the feds.
Just to be clear, I don't care about the practical. I know that someone will have a hard time understanding the law, etc. I just want to know whether it's theoretically possible according to the constitution and statutory law.
2007-10-14 10:15:11 · update #1
Yes. Here is information about the appointment of judges to the federal district courts (or other federal courts):
http://www.uscourts.gov/UFC99.pdf
However, as a practical matter, most districts do not want someone who has never practiced the law. Here is a job application for a US District Court, Southern District:
http://www.casd.uscourts.gov/casd/JobListings.nsf/41d247bb3e9ffdba882564450081f995/ca31dc417dc28ee2882572620001b576/$FILE/Application.pdf
As you can see, it asks about your history as an attorney.
2007-10-14 10:35:00 · answer #1 · answered by Princess Leia 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
According to a ruling by the supreme court the only position that requires you to be a lawyer is the solicitor general. if you think about it it makes sense since back when the country was founded very few laywers would have a law degree most (like lincon) were aprenticed to another lawyer. Also the thing that qualifies someone for an appointed position is a nomination by the executive and a confirmation by the legislature.
2007-10-14 17:16:27 · answer #2 · answered by drewder 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are no set qualifications to be nominated as a USSC Justice or for the Federal Judiciary.
A non lawyer could be nominated.
But in reality, they would have to show an uncommon understanding of Constitutional Law.
I went and looked at each USSC Justice since the mid 1800's, and all were lawyers since then.
Although two, never graduated College, but did pass the Bar Exam and were practicing lawyers.
James F. Byrnes and Robert H. Jackson.
2007-10-14 17:37:32 · answer #3 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Appointees to the federal judiciary, including the supreme court do not have to be a lawyer or have any experience at being a judge. It is, however, unlikely that they will be approved without some kind of related experience.
2007-10-14 17:07:02 · answer #4 · answered by Dan H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that all you need do is look at the Constitution. It lists no qualifications at all for members of the Supreme Court, only how it will be appointed. It would be interesting to know who, if any, was the last non-lawyer to serve on it.
2007-10-14 17:07:09 · answer #5 · answered by colder_in_minnesota 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, theoretically yes its possible. The constitution mentions nothing about requirements for the judiciary branch. Justices are chosen by the pres and approved by congress. but its never going to happen.
2007-10-14 17:06:32 · answer #6 · answered by avkedav 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. You have to be a lawyer first . I believe non lawyers would have a hard time trying to understand the language of the cases that come to court.
2007-10-14 17:11:22 · answer #7 · answered by mil414 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'm only in my first year of college, but i had a law internship in maryland and they taught us that non-lawyers cannot do that. Hope that answers your question
2007-10-14 17:06:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope that would be impossible
2007-10-14 17:05:11 · answer #9 · answered by Beboperson 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋