Nothing wrong about having experience
The Harvard-Yale Alumni Club, better known as the Supreme Court of the United States, is faced with a dilemma: What sort of person should replace Judge John Paul Stevens when he retires? [“Stevens says he’ll decide soon on retiring,” News, April 4.]
The religious makeup of the club after Stevens leaves will be eight Catholics and two Jews. Because of this, it is unlikely that either a Jew or a Catholic will be considered. That is unfortunate because religion should never be a factor in choosing a judge.
The most important criterion should be who has the broadest experience in the practice of law, but I doubt that quality will even be considered. Factors such as religion, which law school someone attended, vacancies in lower federal courts and politics will matter far more.
If one uses logic to figure out the next appointment, then one would figure that the nod would go to a Protestant, lower-circuit federal judge.
I hope that does not happen.
Why not select a lawyer from a private practice, who has actually worked for a living and not lived off the government? Why not appoint someone who lives west of the Appalachian Mountains, who worships the laws of the United States, attended a public law school, tried and won cases in the U.S. Supreme Court?
In short, why not nominate a person with experience? I know it would be novel, but maybe — just maybe — such a person would become a great judge. There is nothing wrong about having experience.
— Harry Foster, Freeland