While Tony Stark's posts often can be over the top, I don't agree with you in this case. The Republicans have obstructed Obama's current nomination, and have already vowed to obstruct any nomination Hillary will do - on top of all the other obstruction they've done in the last eight years. I really don't see a reason why Hillary should play nice if the Democrats have a majority in the Senate.
SCOTUS appointments are the perfect opportunity to leave a legacy of your political philosophy long after you've retired as president, so why not take it, and appoint someone who's expected to last 40 years on the bench.
As to the topic of qualification: there are no formal qualifications for SCOTUS, not even to have a law degree; in principle, you could appoint any hick you'd like. I note, though, that Tony specifically included "ACLU lawyer", so someone who has experience with constitutional law (though primarily with First Amendment issues). And though it's usual to appoint someone who has experience on the bench, there is precedent: FDR appointed Robert Jackson, whose primary experience was as a "county-seat lawyer", and gained fame as US prosecutor at Nuremberg.
