One guy can’t make another candidate a winner.
Is that an Al Gore quote?
I for one think a the court could use someone with political experience. Obama would be an excellent choice. On the other side of the aisle, I’d also consider the less qualified Tommy Thompson.
ETA: I also think the court isn’t large enough and Obama should nominate four additional members to help with the workload. 
Goodwin Liu, who would also add an actual progressive view to the court. But would Obama try nominating him again, with a weakened opposition this time?
Deval Patrick, one of Obama’s closest friends, won’t run for re-election as MA Governor, but won’t say what else he has in mind. If he doesn’t replace Kerry in the Senate after he leaves for State, maybe he has a private assurance of some other nomination to rely on, hmm?
I know “fetching coffee” is hyperbole, but come on. Every Supreme Court Justice’s vote counts the same. That’s a huge amount of power, for life. I imagine most politicians, whether qualified or not, would love to have that chance. Hell, most Americans with strong political opinions would probably love to have a say in Supreme Court decisions, whether they’re remotely qualified or not.
It is probably the only one you know where constitutional interpretation is so divisive. That goes back to the beginning of the Republic in our case.
Why do you think that would be a good thing?
Consensus-building, for one thing. Awareness of real effects of rulings, for another.
Earl Warren may not have been able to engineer a unanimous vote on *Brown *without the political skills he developed as a governor, for example.
I think it’s a statement of the obvious. Hillary Clinton had Bill Clinton’s support on top of her own considerable name recognition and connections, and Barack Obama (who started with Oprah, some buzz over one speech, and not much else beyond a good campaign team) found a way to beat her in the primaries. A president can deliver very valuable support but they can’t elevate an unknown candidate from nowhere. The process of getting nominated or elected is just too complex for that. And I think people are overlooking the alpha dog factor here: guys who try to get elected president think they know best and are going to do it way better than their predecessors because those guys made so many mistakes. The Bushes didn’t talk to each other about being president. In years gone by Obama criticized Bill Clinton for a lack of transformative leadership, his 2008 campaign was based in part on the idea of wanting to get separation from the scandals and craziness of the Clinton years, and they don’t seem to have gotten along until recently. A president who nominates a previous predecessor from his own party is kind of hitching his wagon to that president forever, and the ex-president will be on the Supreme Court longer than the new president is in office.
Quite right, that’s all insightful. I just couldn’t resist the pithy remark, because I will forever believe that Gore was just one hugely significant and popular endorsement away from the presidency, and the fallout of that choice was so damn depressing all I can do is laugh at it. But yes, this time around, I doubt the current president will finish his term with a similar approval rating, therefore his endorsement wouldn’t be as crucial.
I’d love to see Hilary or Obama in the position.
There is no reason to assume they would have to do it for the rest of their lives, and in 10-15 years they could do more to affect more people than in any speechifying/elder statesman role. And I don’t think either of them need the money they could get whoring themselves out elsewhere.
And from friends of mine who worked on the Hill, the Supremes are about the hottest thing short of being CiC. Not a bad gig for someone who appreciates near universal respect and deference.
Small personal interjection - I currently am a federal administrative law judge, and I am not sure how important judicial or even courtroom experience is. A legal education would likely be beneficial, but may not be mandatory. But I believe an intelligent and capable person could do a lot with the staff and resources available to a Supreme.
I agree, Scalia ain’t going nowhere til he’s carried there in a box, and he’s too damn mean to die anytime soon!
Presidents want to nominate people who are going to stay on the court as long as possible, though. Taking it for granted that Obama and Clinton could do more in 10 or 15 years on the Court than they could do somewhere else, the president would rather have a justice who influences the Supreme Court for 20 or even 30 years.
Yeah, I think all future SC nominations will be of surprisingly inexperienced jurors, who have less of a track record than more experienced judges and a longer shelf life. I wouldn’t be amazed if some President nominates some 40 y.o. judge with a year or two on the bench, and if that became standard practice.
I guess I was writing what I HOPE would happen. And when formulating such preferences I guess I don’t assume that a relatively recent trend of nominating young “vanilla” candidates will necessarily remain the practice into the future. 
I like to imagine the possibility exists that a president would seriously ponder the choice between nominating someone they think would make GREAT justice - who might be in there for a limited period, as opposed to someone who is likely adequate - but younger and with a cleaner record.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that judge’s name were something like Farence Fomas.
Well, yes, Bush’s bald-faced lie in claiming Thomas was the best-qualified person in the country to serve on the SC broke new ground, and now judicial experience has almost disappeared as a criterion. Depending on your ox, and who’s goring it, Thomas’s nomination set a precedent that’s either terribly destructive or brilliant.
I’m not so sure how important “courtroom experience” is for a successful SCt justice. And what kind of courtroom? Appellate law is a far different animal than trials.
But a great number - maybe even a majority - of lawyers never step foot in a courtroom. Add in law professors who need never have represented a client.
Yes, I imagine the vast majority of Supremes ought to be drawn from the ranks of judges. Same way most pro baseballers spend at least some time in the minors.
But in an effort to try to identify the largest pool of candidates who might make excellent justices, I’d suggest spreading the net somewhat broadly. I could imagine any number of legislators or administrators being good candidates. Governors, congressmen, cabinet officials, college presidents, non-profit administrators… Certain businessmen might have the experience and other capabilities which would transfer well to the position. There might even be outstanding writers, scholars, commentators.
I was also thinking of how insulted I was when Bush senior described Thomas as “the most qualified candidate.” I was not so naive as to think all politicians always spoke the plain truth, but that impressed me as jawdroppingly impressive.
That’s just 100 percent wrong.
She was outright pissed off on election night in 1999 when it looked like Gore might win, and she cursed GWB for making (or so she thought at the time) her stay on the court for another four years.
Depends on what you mean by “qualified”, doesn’t it? If Bush’s list of qualifications included both “reliable, unquestioning hard-right conservative” and “black, in order to defuse criticism of the choice and to show the GOP is color-blind”, then yes, Thomas probably was the most qualified. 