"One virtue of appointing federal appellate judges to the Court is that these highly judicialized folk are already masters at applying Supreme Court doctrine."

"After all, this is what circuit-court judges do every day: they study and apply what the Supreme Court has said about one legal issue or another. One problem, however, is that Supreme Court precedent can be dead wrong. Sometimes, in fact, it is baloney. And lower-court judges, who daily slice and eat this doctrinal baloney, may be ill-equipped to see it for what it is. Specifically, they may be inclined to think that judges are more right than they really are, and other branches of government, more wrong. A lower court�s job is to follow the Supreme Court�s precedents, whether right or wrong. But the Supreme Court�s job, in certain situations, is to correct its past mistakes�to overrule or depart from erroneous precedents. (Brown famously and gloriously abandoned Plessy v. Ferguson�s malodorous 'separate but equal' doctrine.) Someone who has not spent his or her entire life reading Supreme Court cases � who has instead spent time thinking directly about the Constitution and also spent time in a nonjudicial branch of government with its own distinct constitutional perspectives and traditions � may be particularly good at knowing judicial baloney when he or she sees it."

Writes lawprof Akhil Reed Amar in "Clones on the Court/A Supreme Court that once included former senators and governors is populated today by judges with identical r�sum�s. Here's why that's a mistake."