Brilliant!

Look, I don't know about you guys, but I personally feel very, VERY uneasy with the idea of elevating anyone-- regardless of politics-- to the Supreme Court if they aren't already familiar with Constitutional Law. I mean, they might as well nominate ME. I got a B+ in Con Law, so you have to figure that I learned a thing or two, and I've got a couple of good study guides of my own, so apparently I'm all set for Senate Confirmation Hearings. It's one thing to nominate someone with no bench experience (though I'm actually not real comfortable with that, either, and I don't care how many former justices didn't have higher court experience when they were nominated), but if you don't even know enough about constitutional law to get through a set of Senate hearings that are unlikely to include complicated hypotheticals and trick questions about obscure clauses of the Constitution, then you are not the person I want to see given a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. It's not like we get a "do-over" if it turns out that she's not any good at the whole "being a judge" thing.

Others are apparently as concerned about this as I. I won't be sending mine because I'd like to use them to refresh my memory for the bar exam, but I'm looking forward to seeing the response from others.