So, this post is really late, but I figured I'd do one anyway.
The big complaint that comes to mind regarding the judicial nomination process is that it seems to require that nominees be as boring as possible. The nominee can't really have taken a position on anything, for fear of offending one Senator or another. Elena Kagan herself, as Dean of Harvard Law School, argued that nominees should actually take positions and answer questions. Naturally, when nominated to the Court herself, Kagan did a great job avoiding saying anything interesting to the Judiciary Committee.
The idea that the court is apolitical seems unreasonably idealistic to me. A whole host of cases seem to demonstrate that the Justices essentially vote for policies that they like. Bush v. Gore comes to mind.
Of course, when I'm appointed to the Supreme Court, I will interpret the law impartially, and I will not legislate from the bench.
One thing I'm curious about: federal judges have lifetime tenure. They really have little need to please the public. So why judges have more fun? I would expect that at least some of our judges would be acting like Charlie Sheen. I guess I'll answer my own question: the kind of person who ends up appointed to the federal judiciary tends to be boring.
Being boring is the worst crime of all.
