An op-ed call for a district judge to become a Justice
Echoing a point I made in this 2005 post and this 2008 post, US District Judge Ann Aldrich and her law clerks call for President Obama to nominate a trial judge for SCOTUS in this New York Times op-ed, headlined “A Deep Bench.” Here are snippets, which not surprisingly make reference to sentencing jurisprudence:
To succeed Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, President Obama should select a nominee with experience that no other sitting justice has — service as a trial judge on a federal district court.
Only 11 of the 110 justices in our history have been federal trial court judges. Since the creation of the modern federal courts of appeals in 1891, only four federal trial court judges have been elevated to the high court….
Why is this an issue? Most Supreme Court cases are initiated in district courts, and many end up back there when they are remanded for proceedings that are consistent with the high court’s ruling.
While the court’s opinions affect the day-to-day operations and decisions of the district courts, many of the justices lack the practical experience that is necessary for providing district courts with clear and workable directives.
For example, in 2005, the court declared in United States v. Booker that the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines followed by district judges in criminal cases were no longer mandatory, but advisory. “Advisory” means that the guidelines must still be considered, yet the court did not say how much weight district court judges must give to them. Since Booker, therefore, district court judges have struggled to impose sentences consistent with that vague decision and the piecemeal clarifications that followed from the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court.
It is hard to imagine that this lack of clarity would have occurred had there been a former federal district court judge on the bench — someone who had practical experience with handing down a sentence in federal court….
The nomination of a district court judge would bring much practical knowledge and understanding to the Supreme Court when providing answers and instructions to the lower courts. After a 50-year absence of district court judges on the high court, the president would do well to replace Justice Souter with a young and promising nominee with experience on the federal district court bench — this judge excluded.
Some prior posts on SCOTUS personnel:
UPDATE: In this post at Volokh, Jonathan Adler concurs with the sentiments expressed in this op-ed and goes on to add these further thoughts with which I heartily concur:
I also think it would be valuable if someone on the court had been a criminal defense attorney and litigator (as opposed to an appellate advocate). Appellate experience is important — it’s good seasoning for a potential Supreme Court justice — but so is experiences with how the legal system operates at the ground level.