I’ve been a little bit hesitant to write about the Supreme Court nomination sweepstakes since (a) I think conventional wisdom overrates the importance of the Supreme Court in American life, and (b) the short list only seems to have two people on it and I know Dianne Wood’s daughter and am sensitive to the idea of bias in this kind of thing. But Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s NYT article on Wood’s work as an outnumbered liberal on the 7th Circuit is very much worth your time. I was speaking to some progressive lawyers with experience in the relevant fields, and they emphasized to me that the key aspect in this regard isn’t exactly “persuasion” since federal judges are usually strong-minded and strong-willed people. It’s mastering a certain brand of legal craftsmanship where you can put together a written opinion that people who don’t necessarily share your overarching philosophy can sign on to. On a divided Supreme Court, that kind of skill is very important.

I also think there’s something to be said for adding someone to the center-left faction on the court whose area of expertise is in anti-trust law. The bulk of what the Court does is in the economic regulation realm and not on the “hot button” social issues. Regulatory issues are also the side of the law where specific expertise is more likely to make a difference.

The wrap on Judge Diane Wood from the right is that she has “extreme” views on abortion. Emily Bazelon considers the evidence and finds it wanting, making the following excellent point:

In revisiting a decade-old Supreme Court ruling that made abortions harder to obtain, Wood clearly took a pro-choice stance. But is this ruling radical or outside the mainstream of constitutional thought? Only if the right has succeeded in stifling every last judicial impulse to ensure that women can have unburdened access to abortion.

Beyond this, though, if Elena Kagan winds up getting the nod in favor of Wood it will in part be another triumph for the unfortunate trend toward “never say anything about anything” legal scholarship. Wood’s real sin here isn’t so much that she has an extreme view of abortion or anything else, but that as an appellate judge she had the misfortune to hear several controversial cases about abortion. It seems plausible that Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan or any number of other possible Supreme Court justices would have ruled the exact same way. But they didn’t.

The overall trend has been toward an unfortunate situation in which the ideal nominee is someone with no record on anything anyone is interested in, but who the President has some kind of private reason to believe shares his convictions. It’s a nutty way to run a country.