Thread by @rickhasen

New @brianefallon and Christopher Kang piece @thealantic arguing for an exclusion of corporate lawyers as judges when Dems can choose federal judges again. I understand the impulse but think this is wrongheaded /1

The piece is here:theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
To begin with, they are absolutely right that Democrats should be looking for greater diversity of experience on the Supreme Court. That includes public defenders and public interest lawyers. I support that 100%. But.... /2

But a ban on corporate lawyers seems wrongheaded for two reasons. First, and more importantly, there are some really excellent lawyers who have a progressive vision of the Constitution and who would be excellent on the Court. /3

Those lawyers might be, like Justice Kagan, more credible and persuasive in trying to get conservative colleagues on the Court to occasionally side with them. It is good to have Justices with varying approaches to try to build coalitions. /2

Second, a per se rule against nominating corporate lawyers to the federal bench not only limits some great choices for the bench, it also unfairly punishes some who work for large firms but who still do very good pro bono work and participate in important legal work /5

It is not only hard to get public interest work it is also a great opportunity cost, especially for law school graduates with a great deal of debt. People who take corporate law jobs do a lot of good on the world and do not deserve per se exclusion. /6

Finally, trying to get presidential candidates to exclude corporate lawyers from consideration for the bench is a way to only further politicize the judiciary and to give Republicans a further tool to paint Democrats as extreme on judges, with no countervailing payoff. 7/7