Excellent commentary IMO at CNN today by Professor Sherrilyn Hill:
...It's been nearly two decades since anyone who has not served as a federal appellate judge -- for at least a little while -- has been confirmed to sit on the court. What this means is that justices on the court have come to be representative of a very narrow slice of the profession.
Federal appellate judges, former federal prosecutors and high-powered federal appellate practitioners stand a very good change of getting nominated. State court judges, full-time law professors, former criminal defense attorneys, even civil practice trial lawyers -- not so much.
Thurgood Marshall (a federal appellate judge when he was nominated by President Johnson in 1966) is likely the last justice on the court who had personally defended a criminal defendant at trial in a capital case.
It's a shame because this means that the deliberations of the court lack the perspective of lawyers who understand the challenges that face lawyers presenting evidence in some of the toughest and most complex criminal and civil trials.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/04/ifill.court/index.html