when are they going to announce that Sen. Webb is the VP running mate.

Because you are now looking at the realities of an Obama presidency. Dude, folks tried to tell ya. Obama folks don't want Sen. Clinton.

Wake up and smell the expresso.

What a treasure Warren turned out to be, eh?  Let's not forget that Eisenhower thought he'd be a conservative, and was largly hoping to defuse Warren's presidential aspirations with the appointment (he was Republican Dewey's running mate in '48).  Ike was only partitally successful.  Oops.

Anyhoo, Warren also served as a District Attorney, California AG, and as Governor of same before his SCOTUS appointment.  As threadbare as that may be, Hillary's judicial experience still appears weaker on it's face (Wal Mart/Rose Law for cryin' out loud).  Because she has no expertise in constitutional law and has never served on any bench, she's a hard sell (even minus the baggage), though I'm inclined to think the Senate might make an easier confirmation for one of their own.    

Obviously there are no prerequisites.  I don't think judicial experience should be the only qualification, but certainly foremost among them.  Aint nuttin' wrong with at least a little constitutional scholarship.  That said, I also agree with the notion that the high court should be leavened with a politician or two.

Gov. Granholm might be be a good choice in this vein.

Granholm began her career in public service as a clerk for U.S. Judge Damon Keith on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.  In 1990, Granholm became a federal prosecutor in Detroit, where she maintained a 98 percent conviction rate.  In 1994, Granholm was appointed Wayne County corporation counsel.  She worked to reduce taxpayer-funded lawsuit payouts by 87 percent.  Elected Michigan's first female attorney general in 1998, Granholm continued her fight to protect Michigan's citizens and consumers.  She established the state's first high-tech crime unit to prosecute Internet crimes.

Now, it's not that I oppose HRC on the court per se. Clinton certainly has political and legal experience that would diversify the Court.  I just think her nominiation VERY unlikely (and not just for lack of judicial experience).  

Other factors:

Age:

We probably want to shoot for someone who'll be on the Court 20-30 years.  HRC would be at least 61 the first time she punches a SCOTUS timecard.  Not too old, but close.

Controversy/Opposition:

Her nomination would likely ignite a firestorm of Republican opposition.  I doubt Obama will willingly seek to embroil his fledgling administration in the umpteenth rehashing of the 90s scandals (e.g. Whitewater, Travelgate, etc.)

Well, I don't necessarily.  I clarified my position somewhat with this response above.

To quote, uh, myself:

Obviously there are no prerequisites.  I don't think judicial experience should be the only qualification, but certainly foremost among them.  Aint nuttin' wrong with at least a little constitutional scholarship.  That said, I also agree with the notion that the high court should be leavened with a politician or two.

Heh.  Never done that before.  :)

Anyway, you're right:  experience isn't always the litmus test for a SCOTUS selection, historically speaking.  We need only consider Justices Warren and Rehnquist to see that.

The problem, as I see it, with out-and-out political appointees (i.e.  judges selected to help shape policy) is that it's far more difficult to achieve senate confirmation in such cases.  Look what happened when Bush selected Harriet Miers.  Obvious cronyism.  That horse died before they got it to the track.  They turned to experience with Alito and Roberts--and succeeded.  

I don't think we should cede the moral highground with appointments that are too blatantly political.  It would be begging the Repubs to argue that Dems seek only power, not a court faithfully subservient to the law.  Plus, purely political appointments don't fit well with Obama's "change Washington" theme.  

I hope Obama strives to appoint judges who, via judicial experience, bring diligence and legitimate interpretative skill to their task.  Obviously, we'll want them to help shape and support progressive policy.  Eh, I'm not articulating this very well, but I think a political appointee, rightly or wrongly, sends the message that they don't operate independently from politics.  We're supposed to be better than that.  Still, I'm okay with a few ringers, if we could swing it.  :)

Oh, Obama on the SCOTUS after two terms as POTUS would be amazing.  He hasn't sat a bench, but he clearly knows his way around Constitutional law.  

You tell them Alice.