Thread by @EricColumbus

A few words on Amy Coney Barrett – in additional to having minimal experience as a judge, she has a remarkably narrow professional record *before* becoming a judge -- which distinguishes her from every justice in recent memory. 1/

After clerking, Barrett was a law firm associate for 3 years, and then a law professor until she joined the 7th Circuit eight months ago. That's all. 2/

By contrast, the justice she would replace, Anthony Kennedy, worked as a lawyer in private practice for 15 years followed by 12 years on the 9th Circuit. 3/

The other current justices had a broader range of professional experience than Barrett when they joined the court. 4/

--Gorsuch: 10 years private practice and one year at DOJ, then 10 years as an appellate judge.
--Alito: 13 years in DOJ, including as U.S. Attorney, followed by 15 years as appellate judge.
-- Roberts: 8 years in WH/DOJ, 13 years in private practice, 2 yrs as judge.
5/

Clarence Thomas, who was derided by some as insufficiently experienced when nominated, had worked 15 years as a lawyer in state government, as an in-house counsel, as a congressional aide, at the Dept of Education, and as EEOC chair, followed by 2 years as a judge. 6/

On the liberal side, Kagan/Breyer/Ginsburg, like Barrett, taught law for a long time. But each had a significantly broader set of professional experiences. 7/

Kagan worked 4 years in key White House positions and served as Solicitor General for one year before her nomination. (And she was the dean of Harvard Law School, not just a professor.) 8/

Breyer was also a law prof, but he worked as a DOJ antitrust lawyer, as a Watergate prosecutor, and on the Senate Judiciary Committee before serving 13 years as an appellate judge. 9/

Ginsburg, in addition to teaching law, was the ACLU’s general counsel for 7 years. Like Breyer, she then served 13 years as an appellate judge. 10/

Finally, Sotomayor spent 12 years as a prosecutor and in private practice followed by 18 years as a district and appellate judge. 11/

Looking back, I can’t think of any justice with as narrow a set of professional experience as Barrett (but I might be missing some). Even Frankfurter, the quintessential ivory-tower justice, spent nearly a decade in various federal govt gigs, 12/

Of course, teaching and writing about the law provides valuable experience (and some of my best friends are law professors!). And I'm not suggesting that, by virtue of her narrow experience, Barrett is more likely to rule in a certain way on any given issue. 13/

But at a time when SCOTUS could use additional professional diversity, Barrett would not provide it. 14/end