How to pick best Supreme Court nominee

There's nothing like a Supreme Court justice (actually, there's nothing like a dame, but that line was taken for "South Pacific," so I'm going with Choice No. 2: Supreme Court justice.)

That became more obvious last weekend when longtime Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, leaving a vacancy in America's highest court. (Technically, the Denver City Court is the highest court, both by virtue of being in the Mile High City and because marijuana is legal there, but we'll go with the Supreme Court for purposes of this column.)

President Barack Obama began to consider whom to nominate for what will undoubtedly be a long, arduous fight in the Senate.

The previous longest fight in the Senate was the great Lincoln-Douglas primary election bout of 1858, which went 87 rounds before Lincoln won on a knockout. When Lincoln was staggered early in the fight, the ring doctor asked him for his address and he said "Gettysburg," which led to laughter all around, despite it being five years before he delivered the Gettysburg Address.

Anyway, back to the Supreme Court.

As the ultimate seat for one of America's three branches of government, a nominee for the Supreme Court always brings plenty of scrutiny. Whether it's an examination of previous rulings, any political history or one of the famed "litmus tests" that candidates often face (abortion, gay marriage, the designated hitter rule, the Dick York-Dick Sargent debate as best Darren on "Bewitched"), everything's on the table.

It's messy, but I have a plan.

We want the best person possible on the Supreme Court, so I say let's look at what's needed to be on the court, then find the best person – whether they're a "judge" or a "lawyer" or a "newspaper columnist who overuses quotation marks."

The Constitution, by the way, agrees with me.

You may be surprised, but our Constitution doesn't lay out any requirements for the Supreme Court. There are no age specifications. No need for a law degree. Not even the ability to eat with your mouth closed, which has led to some awkward moments in the Supreme Court kitchen.

Traditionally, of course, presidents turned to judges as their nominees. Seven of the eight current members were judges immediately before their appointment and Elena Kagan was the solicitor general of the United States, a judgy kind of gig.

But many previous members of the court weren't judges, including a former secretary of state (John Marshall), treasury secretary (Samuel Chase), senator (Harold Burton) and inventor of the hot dog (Felix Frankfurter).

So let's look at what's needed. There are four major qualities needed to decide cases that will set law for the entire nation: Sound judgment, the ability to articulate the reasons, the ability to get along with others and the ability to look good in one of those robes.

I'd be willing to compromise on one of those, but no more.

The solution is obvious. Who has to make decisions that affect many people after listening to impassioned appeals from those involved? Who must deal with making a tough call in the spotlight, based on what's fair to others? Who is best suited for the demands of this job?

The answer is simple. President Obama should throw out tradition and embrace practicality. He should spurn a sitting judge and nominate a veteran elementary school teacher to the Supreme Court.

A recently retired teacher might be a good choice (Fairfield-Suisun School District's Judy Engell?).

Problem solved. Oh, the other important answer is Dick Sargent.

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.