What's the rule of law got to do with it?

More speculation abounds concerning Obama's prospective pick to replace Justice Souter when he retires next month. I've heard names like Elena Kagan, Ruben Castillo, and even (*gasp*) Janet Napolitano. It's really sort of pointless to wonder about who specifically it will be, since there are so many from whom he could choose.

So what is he saying about the type of person he is looking for?

He told C-SPAN recently,

"I think in any given pick, my job is to just find somebody who I think is going to make a difference on the courts and look after the interest of the American people. And so, I don't feel weighed down by having to choose a Supreme Court justice based on demographics. I certainly think that ultimately we want a Supreme Court that is reflective of the incredible variety of the American people."

Well, that's nice that he doesn't feel compelled to choose a person solely based on a physical characteristic. While in the end, he may favor affirmative action anyway, he's so far claiming that it won't be his primary motivation.

He also said,

"What I want is not just ivory tower learning. I want somebody who has the intellectual fire power, but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works. Those criteria of common sense, practicality, a sense of what ordinary Americans are going through every day -- putting that in the mix, when the judges are looking at cases before them, it's very important."

Ok... Now the Constitution doesn't say much about the requirements to be Supreme Court Justice. In fact, it doesn't anything, other than they "shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." So, while there's no official specifications, there's a rather large precedent of Justices who are well-educated, knowledgeable about the legal system. And, well, they're usually hired to follow the Constitution. It's alarming to see that in all of his speeches about choosing someone of the people, judicial restraint is not among the first things out of his mouth.

How does that bode for us, with Obama choosing for us a "citizen's citizen" to sit on the bench? Conservatives are terrified that he'll nominate a liberal who will do all kinds of dastardly things, like reaffirming Roe v. Wade and legalizing same-sex marriage. Liberals wonder if he'll seat a moderate who will swing with Kennedy and overrule Roe v. Wade (because those issues are the most important for our country). Me? I'm afraid that he'll appoint someone who embodies what he means when he says "different times call for different justices."