Did you hear the one about how many non-lawyers it takes to make a court?
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
As the president expands his list of potential Supreme Court nominees to include the broadest representation of society, there is one group that has yet to be tapped: non-lawyers.
To serve on almost any state or federal court, the qualifications can be fairly strict: you have to be a lawyer with a decade or more as a member in good standing of the local bar.
There are some jurisdictions, however, that do allow a person without law certification to serve on the very lowest of courts, the equivalent of justices of the peace or traffic court, but their powers and authority are severely restricted.
In effect, if you are not a lawyer, you are limited to serving either on the lowest – or the highest – bench.
You would think that anyone who will get to decide the legality of the nation’s laws would have to be a lawyer. In fact, the Constitution is curiously mum on the qualification of judges for the top court – unlike the greater details it gives for those who want to serve as legislators or president.
The issue briefly -- and humorously -- was raised again at Wednesday’s White House briefing when spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked if any non-lawyers were on the growing list of possible nominees. Obama has cited real-world experience as one of his criteria for a nominee, but most of the names being tossed around are sitting or former judges, with an occasional academic or practicing lawyer, all part of the same judicial universe.
‘“Robert, I’m not sure about the ‘outside the judicial monastery’ phrase. Does that mean the president would not consider a non-lawyer for the high court? You haven’t discussed that with him?” was the question.
“I have not,” Gibbs replied.
“Could you?” came the retort, followed by laughter.
“I was going to say, this is just another attempt to get your name in the stack,” Gibbs joked with the reporter.
“All of us hold out hope that a non-lawyer might,” Gibbs said. ‘No, I’m kidding.”
Every judge named to the U.S. Supreme Court so far has been a lawyer, but some of the early jurists earned their stripes by apprenticing with more experienced attorneys rather than attending a law school. That is still a legal route in some states.
-- Michael Muskal
