I read a good opinion piece about judicial appointments. Most of the democratic appellate judges, which in recent history has been the stepping stone position to the high court, are mostly too old to be considered. Here’s a clip from the CBS piece: 

The average age of all active federal appellate judges appointed by Republican presidents is 59.6, while the average age for Democratic appointees is 62.8. The age difference between the youngest sitting Bush appointee, Neil M. Gorsuch, 40, and the youngest sitting Clinton appointee, Charles R. Wilson, 53, is 13 years. Bush appointees are, on average, seven years younger than Clinton appointees. That difference may seem small, but James Lindgren and Steven Calabresi of Northwestern have calculated that, since the 1970s, the average age of appointment for Supreme Court justices was 53 and the average age of retirement was 79, creating an average tenure of 26 years. That means the seven-year advantage for Bush appointees would be equivalent to 27 percent of the lifespan of a Supreme Court justice. 

 This may explain why there is some talk about appointing someone outside of academia or the federal bench. Perhaps someone from the private sector, a successful trial attorney, could be considered. Since so many of the judges, at least from what my father has told me, are former prosecutors or judges with no trial experience, this would be a welcome development in my view. Another reform movement may be needed to do this, as George Will noted in his piece today, albeit in the opposite philosophical direction.

Fifty years ago, about 65 percent of the federal judiciary came from the private sector -- from the practicing bar -- and 35 percent from the public sector. Today 60 percent come from government jobs, less than 40 percent from private practice.

Judges must be paid more to lure people from the private sector away from lucrative private practices. 

Any trial lawyers to suggest?