× Thanks for reading! Log in to continue. Enjoy more articles by logging in or creating a free account. No credit card required. Log in Sign up {{featured_button_text}}

Supreme Court Justice Howard Stern.

If it’s possible to have President Donald Trump, why couldn’t the self-proclaimed king-of-all-media be among the elite arbiters of law? It makes about as much sense to me.

The U.S. Constitution is silent on qualifications to be named to the high court. The president nominates a person, and the Senate then confirms with a simple majority. There is no job description.

The outrageous radio host would add diversity to the bench. He’d be the only non-lawyer — the ultimate outsider, which apparently is what voters want. The court could use a perspective not rooted in the knowledge of law.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia was known for his blistering retorts, scathing statements, brash demeanor and relish of a good argument. Stern does all those things.

A bonus would be possibly getting cameras in the courtroom — finally. It would be nice for someone to pull the staid institution into the 21st century.

Stern has experience as a judge on “America’s Got Talent,” becoming the level-headed moderate one on the panel. That’s more than law professors immersed in the theory of the legal system.