@ Bill Poser,

In that case, since there are no federal judicial positions below the district court, where do you expect to find “experienced” judges for district court openings?

I think we may be using different notions of “experienced”. I’m suggesting that judges with litigation experience but not long on the bench are more likely to make certain kinds of errors than judges who have been on the bench a long time. So the judges I am calling “inexperienced” are judges with little time on the bench. You are thinking of these same judges as “experienced” because most of them have prior experience with litigation.

Sometimes a system is so badly broken that it can’t be fixed and you to need to go back to the drawing board and start over from scratch.

That isn’t what judges do.

Mr. Miller, please explain.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/18/politics/trump-judicial-nominee-petersen-withdraws/index.html

“You can’t fix a system (assuming it is even broken) when you don’t know anything about it.”

Sometimes a system is so badly broken that it can’t be fixed and you to need to go back to the drawing board and start over from scratch. ;

In such cases, some one with a lot of experience in the old system is likely to be emotionally invested in the old system and may be biased towards repeating the same design flaws in the old system.

Maybe they could learn somewhere, I don’t know, besides being on the federal bench.

So the only criteria is, what, being an alleged smart person?

Because there is just no comparison.

I am not sure I buy into the idea that one cannot appreciate the law or being fair and impartial without having spent time in a courtroom.

I’ve never heard a trial lawyer say such a thing, regardless of whether the matter is civil or criminal, and regardless of who they represent.

Do you think that a guy who applies at McDonalds understands the cooking process McDonald’s uses?

I’m also certain I’ve never heard a lawyer compare being a federal trial judge to a burger flipper.

Some / many / most people believe the judicial system is broken or at least a need of a change.

You can’t fix a system (assuming it is even broken) when you don’t know anything about it.

Alex,

Sorry, but I disagree that physical sciences with measurable outcomes are the same as a court where nothing is an absolute.

Furthermore, you seem to be saying that NASA should never hire engineers that have not been engineers before. If that is the standard, we can never have new judges.

As you brought up NASA, you may remember the Challenger accident. You may also remember that NASA conducted both an internal audit of systems and an independent external audit of systems to find the cause of the disaster and to prevent future accidents. (O rings anyone?)

One of the lesser issues found beyond the O rings was that there were over 3000 potentially catastrophic problems with the computer programming of the shuttle. The code was written by the NASA “experts” and “experienced” people.

The outside investigation which found the errors was a bunch of college kids that had not yet graduated. They were able to see the systemic errors built into the programming that people in NASA were glossing over and missing. Sometimes new eyes can help.

Finally, you may also remember the classic Miracle on 34th Street (the 1947 original version.) (It’s Christmas time so I am bringing this up.)

There’s an exchange between Judge Harper and the son of the Assistant DA named Tommy.

HARPER: Tommy,you know the difference… between telling the truth and telling a lie, right?

TOMMY: Everybody knows you shouldn’t tell a lie…especially in court.

So apparently we have kids who know more about right and wrong as well as truth and lies than many who work and or appear in courtrooms.

And the kid didn’t even go to law school.