This does no good, of course, because the Senate has said that they will withhold consent until after the election, which is also their constitutional prerogative. (You know, that whole consent thing.) Additionally, Garland is a lawyer, educated at Harvard, which doesn't do much for the diversity of the Court.
Professor Reynolds makes a good argument, one that I've refrained from making, about the requirements for a Supreme Court Justice. (Basically, there aren't any.)
Maybe it’s time to name a non-lawyer to the Supreme Court. There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires Supreme Court justices to be lawyers, and there are some pretty decent arguments as to why non-lawyers should be represented.Indeed. Justices should be persons of common sense and common decency. Right now, the high Court is awash in lawyers, trained either at Harvard or Yale. Not a very diverse group, certainly not reflective of the society they serve.
You can read the good professor's arguments at the link above, but I agree with him. Lawyers have a limited place on the Court, and if we're all accountable to the law, then we should all have a say in its application and interpretation. This task is too important to rely on one narrow profession.
So, in the interests of Truth, Justice, and the American Way, I stand ready to serve. If the current, or any future President decides to nominate a non-lawyer, I'd be happy to serve. I would bring to the bench a strong understanding of the written Constitution, a general disdain for idiots, a firm grasp of justice, and a streak of sarcasm that would blow like a cleansing breeze through the hallowed halls of jurisprudence.
I do not seek the nomination, nor do I shy away from it. Mr. President, I await your call.