Apart from ethical and other issues extraneous to qualifications, there are at least two dimensions of "qualifications" to be on the Supreme Court: (1) Evidence of legal ability of the sort needed by a Supreme Court justice, and (2) a "judicial philosophy" by which one approaches the task of judging at this time in the Court's history.

Given the defenses of the qualifications of Harriet Miers to which I linked below, who could a Democrat president nominate to the Supreme Court who would meet what may one day be called by Democrats the "Miers Standard" (like the "Ginsberg Standard" of confirmation hearing testimony now deployed by Republicans)? Here is another way to put the question: if Harriet Miers is accepted by Republicans as qualified to be on the Supreme Court, who are they estopped from opposing in the future on the basis their of "qualifications."

I do not mean to suggest that a Democrat president will actually appoint such persons as are on whatever list is generated here. To the contrary, our most recent experience with Democrat appointments to the Supreme Court were Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, who satisfy anyone's criteria of qualifications related to ability (as opposed to judicial philosophy about which supporters and opponents can reasonably differ).

I mean this as an entirely serious exercise, rather than an invitation for frivolity--tempting and amusing as that may be.