Scott Galloway, an NYU marketing professor with a podcast, has a suggestion for Kamala Harris. Not the presidency — he concedes she was a poor candidate who couldn’t survive to Iowa in 2020 and lost in 2024 after spending north of a billion dollars. His idea is the Supreme Court.
Yikes:
Scott Galloway: Kamala Harris isn't a good presidential candidate — but would make an "outstanding" Supreme Court Justice.
He's serious:
"Vice President Harris. Outstanding Senator. I think she'd be an outstanding Justice. I thought she was a lousy presidential candidate."… pic.twitter.com/62RSg9moYh
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 22, 2026
The proposal is getting laughed at, and the laughter is deserved. But the joke isn’t the interesting part. The interesting part is that Galloway offered no argument about jurisprudence at all. His case was that she was a good senator and turned in a strong debate performance. Debate performance. That is the qualification being advanced for a lifetime appointment interpreting the Constitution of the United States.
Nobody should be surprised, because it follows directly from what the left believes the Court is. If the justices are essentially nine politicians in robes, voting their values and dressing the result in citations, then of course a televised debate is relevant experience. Poise under pressure, message discipline, the ability to land a line — those are the skills for that job. Doctrine doesn’t enter into it. Neither does any demonstrated interest in the subject.
I've not ever heard her discuss any Supreme Court cases or constitutional law in general.
Not all lawyers are fit to serve on the Supreme Court and she was barely a prosecutor lol— AndrewBroering (@AndrewBroering) September 23, 2026
Scott Galloway is a certifiable idiot so none of this is surprising. https://t.co/gr3RZG6DFg
— Rita Panahi (@RitaPanahi) September 23, 2026
And in Harris’s case, that’s not a minor gap. She spent four years as vice president and two decades in public life without leaving behind any body of thought on constitutional law — no articles, no lectures, no sustained public argument about the First Amendment or the separation of powers or anything else a justice spends a career on. She failed the California bar on her first attempt, which is forgivable on its own and rather less so as a data point alongside everything else. Her one memorable constitutional position, from the 2019 primary, was a promise to act unilaterally on gun policy if Congress declined to act, which is a statement about how little she thinks the legislative power constrains an executive who is impatient.
That’s the person being floated for the bench, and the person floating him isn’t a fringe figure. Galloway is a mainstream media voice with a large audience, saying out loud what a great many people in that world assume: that the Court is a place where you install allies, and the relevant credential is reliability.
Conservatives have spent fifty years arguing the opposite — that judges apply the Constitution and law as written, that the job is bounded by text and precedent, that a justice who reaches the result he prefers has failed regardless of whether you like the result. It’s a demanding standard, and the right hasn’t always lived up to it. But it’s the reason a Federalist Society shortlist reads like a list of people who have thought hard about law for decades rather than a list of people who did well on television.
The two views can’t be reconciled, and this week one of them was stated plainly by someone who didn’t realize he was giving anything away. Take Galloway at his word, though. It’s the most honest thing anyone on that side has said about the judiciary in years.
