Age Effects on Supreme Court Nominees

Brookings Institute has an interesting article on how older jurors have become less and less likely as nominees for the Supreme Court. The trend is towards younger jurors (such as Alioto and Roberts) who will serve for a long time, making "their mark". A few insightful quotes:

"gender, ethnicity and age have, from the very start of the search for Souter's replacement, placed off-limits many lawyers and judges whose colleagues regard as some of the best in their profession"

"Older judges brought experience to the table, and because life tenure is shorter for them than for younger judges, the stakes are lower in their confirmations"

"The result is a strange conversation about who should replace Souter -- one that self-consciously omits many of the judges whose work is most actively studied by those who engage day-to-day with the courts"

I'd add that younger nominees have less of a paper trail, so have simply had less time to make bad, controversial, or egregious rulings that galvanizes opposition. The opposition is always there, but without concrete examples of several bad rulings, it's hard to get the political strength to make the opposition stick. In other words, they have less dirt. But it's harder to know what you are really getting.

If the Senate were more evenly divided, and our parties were less partisan, I could see a compromise, president Obama gets to nominate a strong liberal of his choice, so long as he/she is old. With Obama's popularity high, and Democrats in strong control, I expect somebody very young, very liberal, and very controversial. But maybe Obama will surprise me - with the economy still in bad shape, he may choose to save his political capital for the more controversial aspects of the budget or health care reform. Time will tell.