[JeffAtlanta]

I stipulated that the only real difference is that a SC justice is there for life.

That is not a trivial difference at all. If you elect the a bad guy for the city council, it's not the end of the world as he can be voted out next year. You can't do that with supreme court justices.

The lifetime appointment changes everything. That is why you have to nominate someone with a very proven track record.

If you were going to hire a football coach for life, would you go with a person with no head coaching experience or one with a stellar track record as a head coach. Would you hire a man without any coaching experience just because a buddy recommended them and has known them for a long time?

I know you think you are being realistic and we are being idealistic, but it's quite the opposite.

[kjam22]

That is why you have to nominate someone with a very proven track record.

Or a really good family friend that you trust.

[kjam22]

If you were going to hire a football coach for life, would you go with a person with no head coaching experience or one with a stellar track record as a head coach.

:) You're asking the wrong person that. OU hired Bob Stoops with no headcoaching experience.... and that's worked out pretty good :)

[kjam22]

If you really want to control the court.... to ensure that for their lifetime the persons there will vote as you want.... you nominate a very close friend that you completely trust... or you nominate someone that you "have something on".

I mean reading somebody's diary written out in the form of legal opinions is okay.... but it ain't in the top two ways in my mind.