Politics: What experience makes for a good judge?

I think all of the current Supreme Court judges have been lower Federal court judges at some point in their lives.

The current nominee has not served in this capacity.

One theory is that the best qualification to be a judge is to have been a judge.

Another theory says that having worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and/or in the private sector means the prospective judge has seen the implications of legal matters and is good preparation for SCOTUS.

I think the latter view makes sense, thus, having had no judge experience is not a disqualification.

In my opinion, the key question is whether this person has been wrestling with the Constitutional issues of our times in whatever capacity: as a judge handing down opinions, in the executive branch defending actions or determining how to carry out policies, in the legislature writing laws, or in the private sector at the receiving end of the laws of the land.

I think ideology is also fair ground up to a point. No judge would ever answer directly in confirmation hearings how they would rule in a specific matter. However, they should reveal something about the way they go about making decisions and what principles are part of their approach.

Finally, the prospective judge has to be above reproach in the way they have conducted their lives. Since SCOTUS is the highest court, we have to be confident that the judge will not be influenced by personal gain or serve some hidden agenda.

If the media is on the ball, they will try to find every bit of information about the nominee.

From what I hear so far, I think years in the WH (Clinton administration) and as current SG, she has had to deal with many Constitutional issues. Documents from those roles should be released just as in the Robert's confirmation hearings. Additionally, work product (lecture notes, speeches, invited articles and peer reviewed articles) in her roles as a law professor should be released.