Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
I'd compare this experience to learning the mechanics of the judiciary, rather than the skills necessary to excel. Which is easier to acquire later?
|
As a judicial clerk, you actually draft opinions which are then read, edited and submitted by the judge. It not the same as being the clerk of court who signs off on filing. Most judges can't write every opinion or read every brief. If they did, there would be tons of backlog (which in some states there still is). Judicial clerks help the judge by doing research, summarizing the papers of the parties, and writing draft opinions. Clerking for an appellate or supreme court judge is probably some of the best training you can get without actually serving as a judge.
There is also another aspect to this. Clerkships are generally considered very prestigious, particularly ones with the federal judiciary and the appellate courts. Young lawyers who are hoping for high level jobs in law firms, in academics, or as future judges fight for these positions, even though they pay a fraction of law firm jobs. The fact that she never worked as a clerk means either that she did not have the qualifications to get hired as a clerk or that she was not intending to have that type of career.
I'm not disturbed that she was never a judge before. Many important USSC judges were never judges. John Roberts was never a judge. But Whether you liked John Roberts or not, he was absolutely qualified to be a justice. He went to Harvard Law. He was a former clerk to the chief justice of the USSC. And, he worked for the Solicitor General's office. Compared to the last nominee it is hard to look at her credentials and and believe that she has the best qualifications for the job.