Before Merrick Garland was nominated, I read an article suggesting some diversity in the next nominee, noting that all of the recent justices were former federal judges, and all (or mostly all) from either Harvard or Yale. The writer suggested that it might be valuable to have, for example, the perspective of someone who was a defense attorney on the bench, that someone who might understand what a defendant went through might be useful.
This is the article I referred to.
It begins, “Seven of the eight justices on the Supreme Court today all come from the federal appeals courts. (So did Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday.) Only Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was a judge in California, served outside the East Coast cities of Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington. All eight attended law school at Harvard or Yale. None ever held elected office. Today’s court is ‘in some ways the most insulated and homogenous in American history,’ as Adam Liptak wrote in 2009.”
Absolutely, I would much rather see a little diversity on the court. With no professional experience, except on the bench, half of the court hasn’t had to interface with the real world for decades. They spend more time arguing the legal equivalent of “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” then they do worrying about the real world ramifications of their decisions. I would love to see somebody on the court who has been a part of the world outside the courtroom.
Sure, but how would you know anything about Romero’s legal acumen? He’s basically the CEO of a nonprofit, and it appears he’s been a nonprofit administrator for his entire career. Fine work, but it doesn’t tell us much about whether he’d be a good judge.
I agree that it would be nice to have someone with a bit less of an ivory tower background on the bench. As I notified Mr. Obama prior to the Kagan appointment, I remain available. 
I was responding to Procrustus’s post and not addressing Romero’s merits, in particular.
Because then the Dems will get rid of cloture, by a simple majority vote.
I think that Hillary needs to nominate her own candidate. If the GOP wont accept Garland based entirely on obstructionism, they need to know this will bite them in the ass.
I hope Madame President gets to pick four more Justices, all* very *progressive.
Actions have consequences.
I agree, no bet with this codicil.
Also, I hope her nominees are young enough to remain on the bench for decades.
Seven months later, I’m glad you’re clearing this up.
All of their famous cases involve constitutional issues. Most of their cases do not involve the Constitution at all, except to the extent that jurisdiction may be at issue; primarily, what they do is interpret federal statutes.
EH, in light of the manner of your (presumed) loss, please donate my winnings to the ACLU when they come due.
Mods-Mercy killing, please.
Huh? Nobody’s gloating here. I, for one, was hoping to lose this bet.
Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk
Well, I lost fair and square, although I triply regret it (Trump is President, he will appoint Scalia’s successor, and I’m out $80).
Checks are on their way to Frank, Ace309 and Asimovian. I’ve also made a $20 donation to the ACLU, as Really Not All That Bright requested. Candide never responded to multiple PMs. If I haven’t heard from him or her by Feb. 20, I will deem the bet off.
Hey, it’s not too late to go double or nothing on whether the Democrats can keep the position vacant for another four years. 
I’ve never been less happy to “win” a bet. Nevertheless, my thanks to Elendil’s Heir for prompting an interesting discussion (and, of course, for being as honorable as anyone would have expected).
I would totally take some of that action!
Enjoy,
Steven
You know what would be interesting? If Trumps first nominee was Merrick Garland. Think how much partisan healing that would achieve.
It would go far in making Trump a real statesman.
Whoa! Now that WOULD be brilliant! And the best part is that it would make Mitch McConnell’s head explode. I don’t go in for violence, but I’d pay money to see that.
We taking bets again? We won’t have to wait too long this time. I think it will be a woman, either Sykes or Larsen.