I don’t like a lot of the names being bandied about to replace him.
If it were entirely up to you, who would you choose to be on the Supreme Court?
My short list is here:
By Email
By RSS Feed
Sexual IntelligenceUnderdog BlogMeeting the Sin LawsTTABlogSeattle Trademark LawyerTrademark BlogMedia LawLaw of the LandDillsnap CogitationsAbove the LawAdams Drafting Spam NotesLas Vegas Trademark AttorneyWindyPunditNobody's BusinessSimple JusticeBuild a Solo PracticeNew York Personal Injury Law BlogPope HatTatiana Von TauberCitizen Media ProjectTech & Marketing BlogWhat About Clients?A Public DefenderDefending PeopleLikelihood of ConfusionContiFazzDefend My DomainDispatches From the Culture WarsSiouxsie LawMockler Family LawCrime & FederalismThe SpearheadNot GuiltyIn Mala FideShit!!! Planet!!!
The Koz FTW!
Professors:
Randy Barnett, Gtown
John Harrison, UVA
(Both have a decent amount of practice experience, FWIW. Barnett only has four years, but it was as a Cook County prosecutor spending his days in front of juries, not in Biglaw motion practice. Harrison has 12, split between DC Biglaw and DOJ.)
Judges:
Andrew Kleinfeld (CA9)
Alex Kozinski (CA9)
Diane Wood (CA7)
Don’t know enough about practitioners.
I might also consider the prof I RA’ed for, Michael Klarman (who moved to Harvard this year). Not a day of practice experience other than his clerkship with then-judge Ginsburg. Actually, he’s trained as a historian. (His book From Jim Crow to Civil Rights won the Bancroft Prize a few years back, making him only the second law professor to be awarded for the best book on American history.) His work has focused largely on the inability of courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, to directly cause social change. Someone who’s intimately familiar with what the Court can’t do might be able to provide a worthwhile perspective in more controversial cases.
I nominate Marc J. Randazza. Just think about how much more fun the opinions would be to read…
:-)
Henry Rollins has a spoken word bit about how he’d run for Congress on a platform of promising to be profane. He’d get votes by promising that instead of saying things like “My friend, the gentleman from Ohio, misunderstands my point,” he’d say, “That fucking asshole from Cincinnati is a fucking moron shit-eater whose opinion means jack shit.”
I imagine MJR on the Court might be like that… ;)
YES CINCINNATI!
*desperately misses Skyline Chili*
Kozinski for sure. We need some more humor on the Court. And someone who’s writing chops are up to par with Scalia’s.