The fallacy of your argument is that by virtue of a Harvard education and extended time on the bench a jurist will do a better job. Justices Souter, Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg all earned their law degrees at Harvard (as did Scalia and Roberts). I would prefer someone with more modest qualifications who was able to read and respect the constitution. That said, a jurist with impeccable legal credentials and a demonstrated committment to constructionism would have been better (all other considerations being neutral).