A question for my readers, especially of the lawyerly persuasion. We are guaranteed, I think, at least one vacancy if not three or four on the court during President Bush's second term.

Putting ideology and "confirmability" aside, what would you want to see in a future Supreme Court justice? What do you think makes a good Justice? Please email me your criteria or leave a comment. I'm working on a short list of folks I would like to see on the court based on the below standards, and would be interested in some other qualifications. Names of your favorite potential nominees are welcome, too.

• Readability - too many justices either let their law clerks do too much drafting (and it shows) or themselves use the heavily-footnoted law review style of writing. While that style allows one to cover one's posterior for fact-checking, it is a really tedious way of persuading readers.


• Humor - I don't like judges who seem to be crushed by the weight and dignity of the law. It takes a skillful touch, but judges who incorporate appropriate, occasional, humor into their opinions are all too rare.


• Intellectual Curiosity - Not necessarily Mensa members, but judges who show a greater-than-average intelligence with some flair. Scalia has this quality, as does Ginsberg. Maybe Souter, though he just seems profoundly intelligent with little of the "spark" I'm trying to describe here.

Here are a few quick nominees that I think meet the above (alpha order, not by preference):

Richard Epstein, Law Professor, Univ. of Chicago
Alex Kozinski, Judge, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Richard Posner, Judge, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Glenn Reynolds, Law Professor, Univ. Tennessee, Knoxville (I'm not kidding, nor am I trolling for an Instalanche here. See above criteria!)
Eugene Volokh, Law Professor, UCLA

Posted by: JohnL at 11:30 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.