Giving credit where credit is due for providing a different perspective on SCOTUS nominees

I am pleased to see that columnist Stephen Henderson, in this newspaper piece headlined "Age and the Supreme Court," makes reference to this blog post of mine from yesterday titled "For the Supreme Court, Younger Isn’t Necessarily Better."  However, though I am happy to be the conduit for the insights in the post, the credit for the substance of the post must go to a former law-school classmate of mine (who indicated to me that he preferred to not be named in the post).

Though I personally agree with many of the thoughts expressed in the prior post, my former classmate should get the credit for the insights and the wisdom to be found therein.  Perhaps upon seeing that I am being mistakenly praised for his genius, my former classmate will be okay if I share his name.  In the meantime, I will just encourage everyone to continue to keep thinking (and sharing) different thoughts about whom President Obama should nominate to the Supreme Court.

Some prior posts on SCOTUS personnel (including some with my own (and others') ruminations):

• "For the Supreme Court, Younger Isn’t Necessarily Better"
• Souter, short list speculations and sentencing spins
• Is career diversity a bad thing in the highest court in the land?
• "The last thing the Supreme Court needs: Another judge"
• Reflections on the politics of SCOTUS and personhood of its members
• Insider myopia and the diverse benefits of a short bench
• Thinking creatively about different SCOTUS short lists
• Does SCOTUS need a trial judge?
• Developing a SCOTUS short list of district court judges
• Brave New Justice and sentencing issues
• A modest(?) proposal for filling the bench from the ivory tower