I prefer the recommendation made by Alan Dershowitz about 19 years ago in his book "Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000," published in 2001.
"The time has come to change the criteria for Supreme Court nominees and to depoliticize the process of appointing justices. ... (Page 202.)
"The first step must be to distance the process from partisan politics and to demand that greatness be the major criterion for appointment to the high court, as it is in many other countries, and as it has often been in the history of this nation. The Senate and the president could begin by jointly appointing a nonpartisan commission to gather the names of the two dozen or so most distinguished lawyers and judges in the nation, assessed by peer review under the broadest criterion of greatness, without regard to party affiliation, race, gender, ideology or other such factors. After a through investigation, this list would probably be pared down to about ten candidates. The president would be expected -- though he could not be compelled -- to pick a nominee from that pared-down list, unless he could produce good reasons why another person, not included on the commission's list, qualifies as a potentially great justice. Any name selected from the commission's list would carry a strong presumption of confirmability by the Senate." (Page 203.)
Dershowitz does not know how to define the "greatness" of a lawyer or judge, but in my opinion, it would necessarily include a strong commitment to objectivity.
I know we're off topic, but that's not a terrible idea. However, I'd rather we amend the Constitution to change the appointment process. I think it's a far better solution for the future of the judiciary.
