I just read a very short article over at the Huffington Posts headline ticker which they link to AP articles. The title of this articles is “Scalia: Varried job experieince needed on high court.”
Despite his being a judge before being nominated to Supreme Court Justice, he apparently thinks that judicial experience is a negative thing. The article claims, “He said there were three justices with no prior judicial experience back then and today there are none.”
The article further cites him as saying, “every aspect of your career broadens your outlook” so “it's good for the court to have people of varying backgrounds.”
Perhaps he is advocating that the next Supreme Court nominee is a Mobil/Exxon executive who doesn't know the law? (After all, isn't that why even they have lawyers?)
Is he saying that the next nominee should be an apartment building manager? After all, most of them have no judicial experience. Perhaps we should nominate a drug dealer (I'm not talking from a pharmaceutical company). After all, the only judicial experience they would have is being on the other side of the bench.
I mean seriously, isn't there a reason that we prefer our the Justices of our highest court to have judicial experience? By already having judicial experience, the logical conclusion that follows would (or at least should) be is that they have a better understanding of the law as opposed to someone who has worked their entire life outside of the legal system.