Trump's Likely SCOTUS Pick

01/26/2017 02:39 pm ET Updated Jan 27, 2018

A friend in DC emailed last night, predicting that Trump will nominate a particular judge from the list he circulated awhile back.

That seems unlikely, and the list a mere distraction. To assume Trump will appoint a judge to the Supreme Court is to buy into tired old Beltway tropes.

It's exactly the sort of conventional thinking that cost Clinton, Bush and the others their shot at the presidency. Trump wasn't elected to coddle elites who lord it over the rest of the country with their qualifications, education and experience. Even Nixon knew that stupid people deserve representation on the Court too, but Trump seems particularly determined the fill the government primarily with fools and vagabonds.

Those who bemoan Trump's presidency should never forget how privileged we are: to live in the US, to live in an age of technological miracles and to live during the reign of what is likely to be the worst presidency in US history.

That's historic, by definition. It's yuge.

And though appointments are tough, Trump has delivered, at least if you're a fan of incompetents (Ben Carson, I'm looking at you), generals and billionaires. It may not be a smarter Cabinet than Obama's, but it's probably a bigger one. Any photos that suggest otherwise are fake news.

Personally, though, my fanboy crush is directed elsewhere. I dig Lewis Carroll, and from that perspective the Rick Perry nomination was the high water mark. Who else to lead an agency than someone who wants to eliminate it, can't remember its name, doesn't know what it does and has no experience in the field anyway.

It doesn't get much better than that, though I suppose "low energy" Jeb Bush would also have been a good choice for Energy Secretary. (Ah, the road not taken.) The fact that the agency holds the capability to vaporize the planet is just icing on the cake.

But back to the Court. If this were the 1930s, I'd expect Trump to appoint a celebrity criminal to the bench, like Al Capone, who had more experience in courtrooms than some judges. And Capone even vaguely resembled Scalia, which is certainly a plus.

What's more, Capone has been in movies, or at least has been portrayed in movies, which is pretty much the same thing.

Alas, today all the famous crooks are Mexican or Muslim, and are thus likely to impose Shariah law, or only affirm decisions by Mexican judges like Curiel, who somehow slipped over the border ... which shows why we need that wall. And as for getting Mexico to pay for it, that's easy -- the entire US population will just leave while nobody's looking, and Mexico will get stuck with the bill.

If not a judge or a crook -- or perhaps both -- who will Trump appoint? I think the standout choice for the seat is Ivanka.

Yes, Ivanka. She's young, attractive, and even to a gay guy, she's hotter than Scalia, even when he was alive and certainly now. Finally civics teachers will be able to stop whining that their students don't know who's on the Court. Ivanka can sell bangles from the bench, then resign in eight years to run for president. Or better yet, hold both jobs.

And Trump, by appointing a non-lawyer, not only gets to thumb his nose at elites but also manages to prove that he actually has read the Constitution, and knows that the Supreme Court is one of those entry level positions where prior experience is not required.

They've been serving up weak tea -- no doubt from teapot domes -- for several years now on the Republican side of the aisle on the Hill, and Trump has brought that philosophy to the Oval Office and Cabinet. Now it's SCOTUS's turn.

More vacancies to come? No worries: the US has a deep bench of bench candidates without depth. From the Kardashians to boy bands, WWE to reality rejects, in a few years we may have a Court that is truly Trump's equal -- although by then, he may be holed up in the Russian embassy seeking asylum from impeachment. A Penny for your thoughts?