Someone NOT from the Ivy League would be nice.
What difference does that make?
A lot in my mind. There are quite a few excellent law schools in the US and only choosing our top judges from a handful of them limits the intellectual diversity and different point of views I'd like to see in the courts.
Once, many years ago, I saw somebody else on the internet say that they think we need greater "diversity" on the Supreme Court, and that person also meant that not all of the Justices should be from the Ivy League schools. But I agree with Damar; which law school they attended should not make any difference. What should all nine members of the Court be? The one most important quality we need among all Justices is the quality of objectivity. The Supreme Court should be made up of the nine most highly objective interpreters of law that we can find in the country. They should set aside their own views of what the laws ought to be and just strictly interpret what the laws were intended to be. Which law school they attended is not the slightest bit important, so long as wherever they did go to school, their teachers taught them that the ultimate virtue in being a great judge is a commitment to objectivity. We don't need more Antonin Scalias, or more Ruth B. Ginsburgs, or even more Anthony Kennedys. Instead we need more people like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Hugo Black, and Learned Hand -- jurists who clearly had a commitment to interpreting the laws and the U.S. Constitution objectively.
