From: "Gary Britt" 

The constitution doesn't even require that they be a lawyer, much less
previously a judge.  Lawyer's read, argue, and apply the law all the time.
That's all appellate court judges do, so its not as big a stretch as you
might imagine.  It would be a much harder transition for a lawyer who
didn't do litigation to become a trial court judge than it would for a
lawyer (litigation or no litigation) to become an appellate court judge. 
Trial court judges have to make evidentiary and procedural rulings on the
fly as the trial is going on, etc., and this would be much harder for a
lawyer who wasn't a litigator to pick up on in the beginning, than just
reading and applying the law to the facts.

And if you are a liberal appellate court judge then you don't even have to
read the law or apply it to the facts, you just make up the result you
personally think is best.  What could be easier than that.

Gary

"Dave Ings"  wrote in message
news:43416d86{at}w3.nls.net...
> For a moment set aside the cronyism and/or ideology. Can someone explain
how
> it is that someone who has apparently never sat on a bench can possibly be
> qualified to sit on the *Supreme* Court justice?
>
> I have no specific domain experience with the legal system, but this just
> boggles my layman mind.
> --
> Regards,
> Dave Ings,
> Toronto, Canada
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43414347$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Not for the reasons you state, but I am very concerned about this
> > nomination.  I don't like it, and if this nomination turns out to be
less
> > than a full Scalia, I will never support another Republican for any
> national
> > office ever again for the rest of my life.
> >
> > Gary
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5