Do people think Edwards would be a good Supreme Court judge?

[AP]

The Supreme Court gets all kinds of cases. Not just foreign security cases. Not just criminal law cases. They get all kinds. Cases that have ramifications on working people.

Do people think it would be great to have a guy with Edwards's persepective and set of experiences, and committment to the principles of equality of opportunity on a level playing, who was one of the country's 8 best trial lawyers representing individuals, would be a great fit in the Supreme Court?

[JI7]

1. yes, i suggested it before

when someone asked what can edwards do if he isn't vp and since he will be out of senate. i also mentioned solicitor general in a recent thread asking about edwards as attorney general. solicitor general would probably be better for him as he would be doing what he does well.

[JI7]

3. and he can also easily go into elected office

if he were solicitor general rather than supreme court justice. since i imagine democrats want their justices to stay there for as long as they can and not take any chance of having it go to a conservative leaning justice.

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. Better than 5 of the 9 currently serving.

He has a fine legal mind, without a doubt.

[WyLoochka]

4. Absolutely.

I have been suggesting this for months. Edwards for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court would be a brilliant move by Kerry.

Edwards would also be "non filibusterable."

Solicitor General, as suggested above, would be okay but it's not a lifetime appointment.

[PeaceProgProsp]

6. I like that sig line.

[cally]

5. YES!!!

Edwards would be a terrific Supreme Court Judge. I can only hope.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. Yes

I think it would be great to have him on the supreme court. My only concern would be his judgement on the IWR. I wonder how great a legal mind he is if he can't see why that was wrong. It is one thing to be great at winning cases. Understanding the concept of justice is something entirely different.

[Cocoa]

8. not nearly enough experience

as far as I know, his only government experience is his single term as senator, and his only academic credential is his law degree.

He's probably about 20 years behind any other Supreme Court justice, but he's still young.

[JI7]

9. he isn't that young, he just looks younger than most his age

he is 51 years old which is about the age most justices should be when first appointed especially if we plan on wanting them to stick around there. and he has been a trial lawyer which is experience.

[AP]

10. He graduated near the top of his class in law school and was federal clerk

What experience do you think makes a Supreme Court justice a good justice?

I believe Thurgood Marshall was a trial lawyer for most of his legal career before becoming a justice.

Clinton tried to put Cuomo on the court, and he hadn't practiced law for years and had never been a judge.

Babbit has been recognized as a potential SCt nominee.

What you want on the court is diversity of experience and opinion (ideally, coming from the left).

And what's wrong with having Edwards on the court for 30-40 years? It'd probably guarantee that he was C.J. for at least half his tenure.

[BootinUp]

11. Serving on the bench in Federal court system

Isn't that where most of the Justices have come from?

[PeaceProgProsp]

12. I think it's unusual to have a court that only has former judges.

It used to be that there always a few former politicians from both state and federal government, and people who came straight from private practice, or were state and federal attorneys. O'Connor is the only one with any legislative experience at all, but even she spent a big part of her career in the courts.

I've read that the fact that all the judges in this court came up through federal courts is a problem. I've read criticisms that say this court's opinions reflect that they all have one perspective of the law, and that there are many others.

[BootinUp]

13. Interesting

but I would be afraid that the court would become even more political. In the end they are supposed to interpret the constitution and laws. It seems that the only way to know how they will perform is if they have already been doing it.

If you have any links to share on the subject, I would be interested in checking them out. Or maybe I'll do some googleing.

[PeaceProgProsp]

16. It's already political. I want it to be more LIBERAL.

And the way to do that it to have judges who appreciate what it means to be liberal. And those people are often politicians like Edwards and Cuomo (I don't know that much about Babbitt).

The interpretation of the Constitution will always be political. There's always a gray area (if there weren't, these cases would never have made it up to the S.Ct.). The court's opinions have huge ramifications on the way people live their lives, and how burdens and benefits are allocated, and which direction American society will move.

It's important to have people on the court who have diverse experiences and bring those experiences to their opinions. Edwards probably has a better perspective on how the federal infrastructure gives people opportunity, and about the rights of consumers and workers (vis a vis corporations) than anyone sitting on that court now.

I think I saw a book review on a book about the lack of diversity of experience in the current Supreme Court, but I can't give you a title or author because I'm not even sure I'm remembering this correctly.

Back in 94 when there was talk about Cuomo, there were definitely lots of articles about the history of the court writing about how there was plenty of precedent of politicians going straight from government to the court and that it was unusual that there were so few on the currrent court.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Well reasoned

Yes I think Edwards is certainly qualified, and he might make a great Supreme Court Justice. Edwards is obviously an extremely bright person, and he is fluent in both the language of law and the conceptional basis for it. That in my mind is the minimum requirement. The country would probably be poorly served by a Supreme Court that did not have at least a few individuals on it who were well experienced as Judges prior to being appointed, but I don't believe that needs to be, or even should be, the case for everyone confirmed to the Supreme Court. Edwards having extensive legal experience along with with having served in the U.S. Senate, coupled with his obvious personal abilities, is more than enough to warrant that nod. His opponents would try to use his lack of Judicial experience against Edwards. It might be a matter of how bitterly partisan politics were being played at the time of an appointment, and how the votes would be counted for a possible Republican filibuster to block him. I don't even know if the Republicans would want to block Edwards. Maybe they want him out of politics lol.

[PeaceProgProsp]

17. They'd want to block him. They couldn't count on him to protect corps.

Republicans would want someone out of the Florida Court of Appeals where they're constantly overturning or reducing awards against corporations.

[AP]

19. They wouldn't want a lawyer who knows what it's like to have an award

against a negligent plaintiff (or its insurance company) reduced.

They definitely wouldn't want that.

They'd want lawyer who worked for the corporations and the insurance companies and who came up through a court system where they were rewarded politicallyf for protecting those corporations.

[Cocoa]

27. the clerkship experience is good

I didn't know he had that.

Imo, what he lacks is constitutional law. Marshall was a civil rights lawyer.

Edwards is still young enough to get on that track, if he aspires to the Supreme Court. Or he can go back to his previous practice.

[Scoopie]

14. Uh... no

Considering he has no constitutional or criminal law experience - or, if he does, it's so relatively small I don't know about it.

Look - the man is all about talking - he really doesn't have that impressive of a resume. I'm glad he found a way to use this ability to make him some money, but that REALLY is all he has going for him - that and, to some, his looks.

[AP]

18. He was a federal court clerk, and when you're a lawyer, you're ALWAYS...

...dealing with the constitution. And there are way more civil cases on the supreme court docket than criminal cases, and since about the mid '70s it's the civil cases that are changing society radically, and not the criminal cases.

Man, you don't give Edwards any credit for anything. You do realize that he's a democrat, don't you? And you're aware that he has a pretty liberal voting record. And you realize that a lot of people do like him, which is always a plus in politics.


Even if they guy had run over my dog, I'd want to harness all those things and use them for progress.

[Scoopie]

21. As an Independent

I couldn't care less if he's a Democrat.

And, I said I didn't know if he had done any Constitutional or criminal work, but that I hadn't heard of any. However, since he's 51, I rather suspect he was a law clerk awhile back. Law clerks are usually recent law school graduates - people in their late 20s and early 30s.
And, no, you don't necessarily deal with the U.S. Constitution every day when you're a personal injury attorney - I covered enough of those cases to know that. He probably encountered more cases that dealt with the North Carolina Constitution or what is considered common law because it has been ruled upon in some appeals court. I'm not denying that he HAS dealt with the U.S. Constitution as an attorney and a Senator, but I don't think the BULK of his contributions to the legal profession would make him a good Supreme Court pick.

[AP]

29. What's your idea of good supreme court justice?

A former corporate counsel for the insurance industry? A general?

[JohnLocke]

43. I like Edwards for the Court.

:)

[robbedvoter]

20. I'd have to read his body of legal work. There is one, isn't there?

[spooky3]

38. ever heard of Lexis/Nexis?

[robbedvoter]

47. Yes, Ann. Not much there.

[MontecitoDem]

45. Totally depends what he does next.

The way the court is so politicized now, I don't think it's a good idea to be putting Pres. candidates up there. I'd rather have a different set of experiences - more clerk experience, more federal court experience, someone who wasn't interested in the limelight (as all politicians are - no slam on edwards here).

If he's not VP, and he becomes a federal trial court judge, then maybe someday it might be a good fit.

WHAT is he going to do if (a) he doesn't get VP, or, (b) um, you know ... don't really want to even write this, but what if he is VP and, well, um, I just can't say it.... forget it!

[mzmolly]

22. Sheesh, I'd rather see him as VP than Gep! I like Gep ok, but he and

Kerry ... it'll be the Sleepy and Dopey ticket. Wahhhhhh!

:cry:

Sorry, just venting.

[Bombtrack]

23. No, that would just be an injustice to all of the actual judges who have

spent their lives being hard working judges, not some great politician like Edwards.

[goodhue]

24. I think he would be a much better Vice President than SC Justice.

My view is that Justices of Supreme Court should have prior experience on the bench as a judge or justice at the state of federal level. Even for state supreme courts, I feel appointees should have served as a judge in some capacity beforehand. Reviewing courts should be composed of folks who have been in the position of those they are reviewing.

[TexasSissy]

25. I don't think he's experienced enough, is he?

He's only about 50 years old. Aren't the justices usually approaching retirement age?

[AP]

30. Liberals need someone to offset Thomas, who'll be around for a while.

[Skwmom]

32. So the liberals should put someone

just as unqualified as Thomas on the bench?

[AP]

33. What, only generals can serve on the S.Ct now?

What's wrong with Edwards's qualifications?

No corporate board memberships?

[BurtWorm]

26. No.

I would want someone with constitutional law experience, not a politician.

[Darkamber]

28. no...if you are going in this direction then AG is better...

He's never been a judge and has only been a trial lawyer and that was even what 6 years ago. There's no way he would get confirmed. His attacks against Corps alone would make him too controversial.

I even question if he has the right experience for AG as he's been out of law practice for at least 5 years. Laws can change alot in 5 years.

Though, I have enough trust in Kerry that I'm sure even if doesn't tap Edwards for VP that he will keep him involved in his administration if he wins in Nov. I think there is too much support for Edwards in a wide variety of sectors that Kerry could not ignore that.

[AP]

31. I'm talking about someday, not "instead of being VP"

And I think his destiny is to be Pres and then a Sup Ct justice.

I think the court desperately needs to be balanced with someone with his perspective on justice.

[Toucano]

34. Nope.

I've given it some thought, and I've concluded that this would be a mistake.

This appointment would ignore at least 75% of Sen. Edwards' talents.

Sure, he's a brilliant legal mind. But he's also attractive, dynamic, charismatic, and energetic. Those qualities would be completely wasted on the largely anonymous and invisible bench. It would be the equivalent of putting a beautiful painting in a utility closet.

He's built for political leadership. He'll need an appointment that allows him to do that and make fuller use of all his talents.

[AP]

35. But, say he were offered, and accepted, you think he'd be good, right?

[Toucano]

39. Oh, yes.

I kind of misunderstood the question, I guess.

He would be an asset on the bench.

[Andromeda]

36. I've been hoping that Reinquist and Scalia

would be sucked up by aliens and taken to another planet but they'd just screw that up too.

The Supreme Court would be the culmination of public service for John Edwards and I believe he would be qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. I do hope, however, that he will be Kerry's running mate.

If not, I'm sure that Kerry will have Edwards serving in some capacity; he would be an asset in any position.

[spooky3]

37. Yes. His actions on the judiciary committee have made it clear

that he knows what is needed in the court system.

[Nicholas_J]

40. Best place for Edwards

Would be Attorney General.

[Leilani]

41. AP, if you really want to see Edwards as Prez some day,

he needs Foreign Policy credentials. Since he has chosen not to run for Senate again, if Kerry wins, he should make Edwards an ambassador.

Edwards would be perfect for an ambassador: independently wealthy, charming, smart, etc. He could learn a lot; the State Dept at our embassies are there for the drudge work.

He could meet foreign leaders. If he was in Europe, he would probably become familiar with NATO. After a stint or 2 as an ambassador, he would have more avenues open.

Say Kerry serves 8 years, Edwards could return to Washington, join a think tank & publish on issues other than domestic ones. Or he could serve with Kerry in some other way.

And then he could lay his groundwork for Prez, to follow Kerry.

[AP]

48. Clinton and Reagan didn't have to do that for FP credibility. I think...

...Clinton shows Americans that if your hearts in the right place and you have the right values, you can do all the tasks required of the president.

Bush II ran on the lie that he'd only been out of the US a couple times, btw.

I think the primaries really showed that many people believe that Edwards has what it takes to be president.

I talked to hundreds of voters in person and on the phone for Edwards and not ONE said they didn't think he had enough FP experience.

In fact I'll lay it out for you: most people said they just want to beat Bush and because Kerry was ahead at the moment, they thought Kerry had the best chance of beating Bush. If Edwards had won Iowa, he would have been the one people said that about.

Also, people had a harder time articulating it, but they clearly liked Kerry's commercials a great deal.

Neither of those things have anything to do with FP.

[MontecitoDem]

51. Re FP experience

When I was campaigning in AZ, the undecided folks I talked to were choosing between Kerry and Clark. The other choices were out because they didn't have the FP experience those people wanted. So, I guess it depends on who you talked to. Clearly there's lots of voters here on DU who also care about FP and think it's a big issue.

But, I also think it's being overplayed. It's important but so are domestic issues - hopefully those are the bigger issues before our country over the next 4 years.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. I don't think that he'll get past the senate judiciary commitee...

The Republicans would simply argue that he's too partisan for the SCOTUS.

[AP]

49. I'd be surprised if his former colleagues in the Senate did that.

I bet some of them would like to be on the Senate themselves and they wouldn't want to start a precedent which foreclosed that possiblity.

[rumguy]

44. Would he even want it?

He's a trial lawyer. He's good at framing the issues into a compelling story to be told to a jury. That's a far cry from the drudgery of appellate work...especially supreme court work.

[MontecitoDem]

46. Drudgery?

I don't know, I think working for the court is awesome! What lawyer in their right mind wouldn't want it?

[troublemaker]

50. God, No! What a weird thought.

Edwards isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer and, when asked, couldn't even understand the constitutional ramifications of the Defense of Marriage Act. (Even though gay marriage was among the hottest issues at the time and he had known he was running for President for quite a while and was a sitting Senator.)

I'm all for unity so I have largely kept my dim opinion of Edwards to myself, but the Supreme Court is sort of sacred to me.

[DaveSZ]

52. Bill Clinton

would be better.

:)

Edwards for veep, and then after Kerry's second term, he can run for pres.