SCOTUS Justice Hillary? Please make it stop.

Even as an ardent proponent of free speech for all, I find myself hoping this morning that someone will find a way to tackle James Andrew Miller and put a muzzle on him. In a rather jaw-dropping editorial at the Washington Post, Miller suggests that Barack Obama can put the Democratic Party’s civil war to rest by simply promising Hillary Clinton the first open seat on the Supreme Court.

But there is another way to foster party unity without forcing a political marriage.

It’s likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy. Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one.

For my personal preferences, I like to see a nice balance of conservative and progressive voices represented on the Supreme Court. But first and foremost, I feel that those few seats require the absolutely highest level of qualification and ability. Chief among the requirements is the ability to write long, detailed, well researched and supported opinions, be it for the majority or the dissent. This is a skill acquired over time, combined with a natural skill in oration and writing.

I annoyed several of my more progressive friends when I supported the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts. While clearly more conservative in nature than I would have preferred, my reasoning was that George W. Bush was never going to nominate a progressive in any event, and Roberts had the gravitas and body of written work sufficient to justify his appointment. He also had a proven track record of taking on difficult cases putting the lie to perceptions that he was a GOP agent. (Roberts handed a number of defeats to Alberto Gonzales on immigration cases while on the Federal bench.)

What evidence do we have that Hillary Clinton has any such history or body of work? None of which I’m aware. There seems to be no indication that she would carry any more credibility into such a nomination process than Harriet Miers did. There have been dark eras in our country’s judicial history when presidents have used the Supreme Court as a sort of dumping ground for troublesome political rivals, absent any previous experience or qualificaitons for the job. One would hope, however, that those days are long since past. The words written by our SCOTUS justices will echo through the ages and be used as a basis for decisions coming generations from now. Those seats are not a suitable answer to provide a politically expedient solution to thorny intra-party squabbles.