Category talk:American judges

Category Sorting

We need to sort the pages in this category into their appropiate state or federal positions. I added the {{backlog}} template to get some attention. I've been working at it, but it's long, tedious work. Other help would be nice. Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will assist with this matter. --Zsinj^Talk 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename/delete Category:Jurists of Hawaii? —Centrx→talk • 22:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Currently up for CfD after being repopulated into Category:Hawaii judges. --Zsinj^Talk 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, perhaps we should further subcategorize into the respective Appellate Courts, etc. If that is to be done eventually, it would be more efficient to do it now. —Centrx→talk • 22:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved state judges into Category:American judges by state

FYI, I moved all of the state specific judge categories plus DC & Guam into Category:American judges by state. That way they're not all mixed up with other categories regarding federal judges and such. Hopefully that will make it easier to find a specific subcategory here. Dugwiki 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Are American judges always lawyers?

Are American judges always lawyers? In Canada for example, some judges of the "less important" courts such as small claims did not have law degrees. I also wonder about judges in earlier times. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of a single American judge offhand who wasn't a lawyer. In earlier times, one did not need a degree to practice law (see reading law). bd2412 T 20:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mostly yes. Although it's not usually a technical requirement of the job, I think it's so common that it's okay to include it as a subcategory, if that's the point of this question. (What is the point of this question?) --Lquilter (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lquilter: (and thanks to User: BD2412 ) Yes, you are correct,. this is the point of this question. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Almost 100% of judges are lawyers. You would be extremely hard pressed to find an exception that wasn't from early history. In the case of judges today, it is a requirement, with one notable exception: United States Supreme Court judges are not required to be lawyers... but there has never been a non-lawyer appointed. Greg Bard (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I had thought that a number of states did not require judges to be lawyers? or magistrate judges? ... either way we all agree that in almost all cases in the US judges are almost always lawyers. --Lquilter (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The absence of a requirement is not the same as the absence in practice. bd2412 T 11:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Of course, I was talking about technical requirements, and we have all been agreed that the practice has been virtually uniform in lawyers. --Lquilter (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gregbard: This category is not only for today's judges, is it? So should it have Category:American lawyers as a parent? Also you said there is no requirement for supreme court judges to be lawyers - so should your revert not be reverted? XOttawahitech (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

When its upwards of 99%, its time to say "what's the deal?" It isn't like a coincidental quality. There is a reason why judges are almost all lawyers. In the rare instances in which, even historically, an appointed judge wasn't a lawyer, they were still practicing law in a real sense. Greg Bard (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)