During a court conference, Jusice Scalia was railing against the evils of affirmative action/quotas, providing an eloquent and impassioned indictment of affimative action both from a practical and constitutional standpoint. When he finished his rather lengthy monologue, O'Connor turned to him with a smile and said, "Why, Nino, how do you think I got this job?"
O'Connor never published in law journals, at least before becoming a Supreme. But Souter didn't have any history of legal scholarship either, just state court opinions of little relevance to Supreme Court practice. The fact is that presidents often nominate those without an impressive history of legal scholarship -- it makes it easier to get them past the Senate. Unfortunately, as the O'Connor and Souter examples suggest, what we don't know may hurt us.
It is silly to suggest that a Supreme Court nomination is a merit position you get for being America's best legal scholar. It is instead a political nomination. (If it is a merit position, I nominate UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volukh. He's only moderately conservative, but still has no chance due to having published too much about too much.)
Lastly, in case anyone is wondering, despite innumeral liberal slanders, Justice Thomas DID have a good pre-nomination history of legal scholarship.
railing against the evils of affirmative action/quotas, providing an eloquent and impassioned indictment of affimative action both from a practical and constitutional standpoint.
O'Connor turned to him with a smile and said, "Why, Nino, how do you think I got this job?"
Case closed.