There is now a formula that aspiring justices (yes, there are people who plan these things) can follow. As a result, we can expect future justices to share similar traits — intelligent (as measured by the specific schools they attended), accomplished (as proven by the prestigious offices they have held in the executive and judicial branches) and noncontroversial (as made clear by the absence of a paper trail beyond the most arcane academic writings). Don’t get me wrong. We need bright and successful men and women serving on our nation’s highest court. But do all of our justices have to be near clones of one another, distinguishable only by their preferred method of constitutional interpretation? Has it really come down to whether the nominee considers the Constitution to be “living” or “dead”?
It is too late for President Obama to reconsider Kagan’s nomination. But there is the possibility that he will have the opportunity to appoint at least one more justice. And if he doesn’t, there will be other occupants of the White House who will share in this important task. To our current and future leaders, I offer the following suggestion. Break the mold. Walk away from what has become a cookie-cutter approach to the selection of Supreme Court justices, and try something completely different.
