I was reading this article, and I noticed the bolded typo. No woman has served on the Supreme Court without any prior judicial experience. Only men. Thus, I wonder whether this requirement is only applicable to women?
If so, what is it about women that requires them to have judicial experience as a prerequisite to a seat on the Supreme Court while men can dispense with this requirement? Will the media be willing to ask Republicans this question? Why do 40 out 111
men get to serve on the Supreme Court without prior judicial experience, including Rehnquist, but women need to have judicial experience as a prerequiste. After all, no Republican is going to say publicly that they are just being partisan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37072697/ns/politics-supreme_court/
John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, Harlan Fiske Stone, Robert Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, Joseph Story and Roger Taney.
This roster of Supreme Court justices — rated by legal experts and historians as among the greatest or most influential jurists in the court’s history — had one thing in common with Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan: None had ever served as a judge prior to becoming a justice on the nation’s highest court.
Every member of the current court served as a federal appeals court judge immediately prior to being appointed to the high court. And Americans have gotten used to thinking this is normal or even mandatory. It isn't. Forty of the 111 men and women to serve on the high court since 1789 had no judicial experience. In fact, it isn’t even required that a justice possess a law degree.
* * *
Some Republican senators say Kagan’s lack of judicial experience is reason for concern. Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called Kagan “a surprising choice because she lacks judicial experience. Most Americans believe that prior judicial experience is a necessary credential for a Supreme Court justice.”