[Seydlitz]

"The real question is why the President is once again appointing a lawyer ~ we already know what lawyers are like. Personally, I'd prefer someone who'd managed a large company to a profitable year."

How about hiring a successful accountant to do open heart surgery? Law requires lawyers because it is dense stuff, built-up over the 1,000+ years of the common law. Common sense is no help in legal matters, as most Anglo-American legal doctrines are counter-intuitive in nature. One does not have to be a judge to be in the Supremes, but a thorough legal education (evinced by a sound and well-articulated judicial philiosophy) is necessary.

[muawiyah]

Look, if it were so godawful important that only lawyers who'd been judges be appointed to the Supreme Court, why is it we allow them to hire so many "law clerks" (aka, "lawyers") to assist them?

The cold, hard facts of life are that being a good judge has less to do with being a legal genius than you believe.

[AmishDude]

Are you saying that the law is beyond the reach of the people, who are, after all, supposed to be the ones who make it?

[skeptoid]

"..snip.....Common sense is no help in legal matters, as most Anglo-American legal doctrines are counter-intuitive in nature. One does not have to be a judge to be in the Supremes, but a thorough legal education (evinced by a sound and well-articulated judicial philiosophy) is necessary."

I've been involved in one civil and three criminal court processes. The term "common sense" was argued in all of them. And instead of a "well-articulated judicial" rap, how about wisdom,?

[maryz]

as most Anglo-American legal doctrines are counter-intuitive in nature.

Interesting take. Can you give examples?