In light of the decision this week on habeas corpus and detainees, it is important to remember that the power of the President to appoint Supreme Court justices has vast consequences. With the erosion of Roe, the steady resegregation of schools, the attacks on employee rights, and the rise of corporate protections, this Court has been nibbling (no, chomping) at many of the rights that multiple generations have come to expect as a given. So what should President Obama be looking for when he gets to make the call?
I do not claim to be an expert in what constitutes a good Supreme Court justice. Indeed, I could not even name 1/1000th of the judges, lawyers, professors, or politicians out there who might make a short list. But what characteristics/qualifications should Obama seek?
--The ability to get confirmed. Not a problem with a Democratic majority, and given that the present Democratic majority confirmed Roberts and Alito, this bar is pretty low. However, if there is a question, a fellow Senator would be good. Hillary?
--The ability to drive Scalia crazy. Again, a low bar. He looks like he would get set off quickly and easily. As insufferable as he is, Allen Dershowitz would make a good candidate, or, on the other end of the spectrum, John Edwards (just because he makes Tony look older and more toad-like than normal, and Tony would know it).
--A good grounding in Constitutional Law. This would argue for a Larry Tribe, or a Jonathan Turley. Someone professorial, who can look down his/her nose at Scalia and say "Oh, Tony, Tony, Tony," and then treat him like a first year law student. An old, toad-like first year law student.
--Maybe a non-lawyer? Being a member of the Bar is not a requirement. And given that some law degrees are awarded from bartending schools, it may not be worth much, anyway [note: before I get angry posts, I am a lawyer. I recognize that I share a profession with many who aspire to a level of hackery that I can only admire]. So why not widen the field with someone of obvious intellect and the good sense not to spend three extra years getting verbally assaulted in school? Keith Olbermann, Howard Dean (at least he blew his post-grad on medical school), Rachel Maddow (watch Tony bust a blood-vessel), Al Franken (he can do impressions of Tony busting a blood vessel). The possibilities are endless! Be creative!
--A really, really rich person. This might be someone who can direct the movement of the court, because it is obvious that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia admire rich people. They would be so impressed by the fact that there is a rich person in their midst that they would hang around that justice's chambers like girls outside the Jonas Brothers' tour bus. Bill Clinton in now a certifiable rich person (not a problem that he is disbarred: see above). Warren Buffett is a certifiable insanely rich person, and he is sort of retiring, anyway. The only problem with this group is that to get really, really rich you generally have to be pro-business. So we need a George Soros.
--A really, really young person. Used to be the President would pick a jurist who had had a long, distinguished career and so was usually pretty well along in years. Now, in an attempt to make their mark on the Court for generations, Presidents have been inching down the age range, into the late 40's. Fossils! I say pick a 20-something. The job market sucks, and government employment for life is too good to pass up. Think your recent college-grad son or daughter, the one living in your basement (who really needs a job).
What do you think is important in a Supreme Court justice? Who do you think would be good at it? Who would cause Tony to pitch a fit similar to James Cagney at the end of "Mr. Roberts"? Give our next President some ideas for that short list.