Would that include the fancy lawyers at The ACLU? And the EFF? What about Ginsberg? Or Jackson? Or Sotomayor?
I don’t think having a law degree is the problem.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Would that include the fancy lawyers at The ACLU? And the EFF? What about Ginsberg? Or Jackson? Or Sotomayor?
I don’t think having a law degree is the problem.
“Fancy lawyers” as portrayed in the article, are the ones who come out of a handful of elite law schools with the expectation that they will eventually become chief justices. It’s about more than having a law degree.
That said, I think I still disagree with their argument; there’s plenty of justices with law degrees who in general are awesome; and going the route they’re arguing could in fact return to the era of political justices with no legal background; that’s not an outcome I ever want to see.
I’m glad you came away from the article with that perspective. I tried reading the article and all I saw was “stop appointing lawyers to the Supreme Court because law degrees from ‘fancy’ institutions turn out rotten people.” Meanwhile Princeton and Columbia turned out the Supremes I mentioned.