Supreme Court Nominees
University of Maryland law professor Sherrilyn Ifill wrote a good piece published a few hours ago for CNN with good observations on Obama's upcoming selection for the Supreme Court and candid commentary on whether the University of Maryland Law School would hire her again today:
I sometimes marvel that I probably couldn't get hired at my law school today.Fifteen years ago I was a young civil rights lawyer with a strong litigation record and a few good ideas about the relationship between racial diversity on courts and principled decision-making who wanted to enter law teaching.
My colleagues at the University of Maryland Law School took a chance in hiring me -- a chance that I would write well and consistently, and that my litigator's communication skills would translate well in the classroom.
Today, they'd never hire me. Standards have shifted, my law school has moved up in the rankings, and now our faculty rarely even interview candidates who haven't already published a well-placed article. In just a little over a decade, the formula for hiring law professors, especially at the most competitive schools, has shifted irrevocably.
Her point? The same is true on the Supreme Court. State court judges, law professors, criminal defense attorneys, civil trial lawyers need not apply over the last twenty years. Only appellate judges have been nominated.
Professor Ifill argues that this is largely a bad thing. I agree. But, if the nominee is not a federal circuit court judge, there is going to have to be strong proof that the nominee is (1) an intellectual heavyweight, and (2) someone who is a demonstrated progressive. With respect to the latter point, Obama knows how important this seat is to the balance of the court ideologically (read: politically) and cannot allow to happen to progressives what happened to conservatives with David Souter.
Comments
I agree with both Prof. Ifill's comments on legal educators and Mr. Miller's
agreement with the need for renewed influence of litigators both in legal education and at the highest levels of the judiciary. As a law student, I highly value law professors with litigation experience as it brings practical value to the classroom and legitimacy to legal scholarship. Further, I find myself drawn to the opinions of current and past Supreme Court justices who have/had litigation or political experience before their service on the Court. These justices write opinions that have the mark of relating to common experience and typically lack the lofty aims and writing of justices cut from the same appellate bench cloth. Plus, they're simply more fun to read.
I also agree with the assertion appellate bench work is now practically a defacto requirement for Supreme Court apointment. There was an interesting article in Legal Times a few months ago with the basic premise that not only should the Obama administration consider ethnic and gender diversity, but also demographic and social diversity with candiates from more walks of life, law schools, and experiences, among other factors. See 'Legal Times,' March 30, 2009.
I would disagree, only slightly, on the impact of J. Souter's retirement on the current court and the President's future appointment of a new justice. While J. Souter is left-of-center (inasmuch as judges can truly be measured on a political scale) any legitimate choice for the Obama administration will also likely require a left of center (but not too far left) replacement. This administration, thus far, has encountered too many appointment troubles in general, and the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice will, in my modest opinion, one with few surprises. But, time will tell.
Many thanks.
Kind regards,
Derek B.
Posted by: Derek Baumgardner | May 7, 2009 8:10 PM