Professional Competence

It may be intellectual snobbery and elitism, but it is probably no accident that most nominees seem to have graduated from the nation's most prestigious law schools. Even one's performance in law school may add credibility. While Justice O'Connor was not well know outside of Arizona at the time of her nomination, her graduation from Stanford Law School, presumably near the top of her graduating class, did much to alleviate concerns about her competence. Hugo Black graduated from Alabama, not among the nation's elite, but he did so impressively, entering without even an undergraduate degree but graduating with honors. On the other hand, Harold Carswell's graduation from law school at Mercer University did little to mitigate questions about his competence. Honors and legal training at a top school are not necessary conditions -- Warren Burger's graduation from St. Paul in Minnesota is an example of that. However, a distinguished background does help to create an image of a qualified nominee.

A variety of backgrounds may serve to distinguish the credentials of nominees. Naturally, judicial experience rates as one of the more straightforward qualifiers. David Souter's 12 years of judicial experience helped to establish his credentials, especially in the absence of particularly distinguishing achievements in other areas. The same was true for Warren Burger, who served 13 years on the federal bench before coming to the Supreme Court. Benjamin Cardozo's 18 years as a distinguished state court judge prompted strong bipartisan pressure and acceptance of his nomination by Herbert Hoover. Ruth Ginsburg's judgeship allowed her to distinguish her judicial from her political philosophy, alleviating potential opposition from conservative Senators.

Of course, being a judge can also bring trouble. John Parker's defeat in 1930 and Clement Haynsworth's in 1969 came, in part, because of cases whose anti-labor outcomes provoked the opposition of certain labor groups to their nominations. Harrold Carswell's service as a judge brought forth complaints about his competence. Generally, however, those with judicial experience are likely to be considered more qualified than those without such experience.

Next to judicial experience, a distinguished career in the law or in public service serve to qualify an individual for the Court. Felix Frankfurter and Robert Bork were distinguished law professors. Frankfurter was challenged and Bork defeated, in part, because of their public writings, but no one challenged their basic legal qualifications to sit on the Court. Lewis Powell's distinguished private practice of law and status as a former president of the American Bar Association boosted his qualifications to serve.

Earl Warren's extensive public service in elective and appointive offices brought a familiarity and experience with public issues that served as a qualifier. Even Sandra O'Connor's varied service in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of state government was viewed as a unique and positive experience to bring the Court.

On the other hand, questions were raised with respect to the qualifications of Clarence Thomas, who had served little more than one year as a Circuit Court judge and whose work during the 1980's in the Reagan administration was the subject of controversy. Thomas' disavowal of public writings and statements as reflecting views that he might bring to the Court served only to fuel concern about his qualifications.

Adapted and used with permission from George Watson and John Stookey. Shaping America; The Politics of Supreme Court Appointments. Harper Collins, 1995, pp. 74-75.