Matt Rothschild, at the Progressive, believes this would be a good alternative if a spot isn't open next to Sonia and Elena in D.C.
[T]here is another intriguing option for Feingold: Run against State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, the leading conservative on that bench, which tilts rightward by a narrow 4-3 margin.
Rick Esenberg doesn't think that's a likely scenario:
Feingold has been fairly adamant in adopting a view of the Bill of Rights that emphasizes the rights of criminal defendants and that is always a tough sell in a judicial election. I think he'd lose in a hugely expensive race and that would probably make a race for the Senate in 2012 highly unlikely.
Very true. The American public doesn't value amendments four through eight (unless it involves nudity) as much as a great democracy should. We should be proud of the fact that our criminal justice system has granted defendants much greater rights since long before many European nations began adopting strict standards of criminal procedure, at least in theory. It wasn't until a decade ago that French cops were required to inform an arrestee what he was being charged with.
I actually think Feingold could win, simply based on the fact that he has much greater name recognition than Prosser. In a low-turnout Spring election, I think the enthusiasm behind Feingold would outweigh the conservative advantage in judicial elections. If every Feingold-lover (there are still many) in the state voted in the election, he would win.
Furthermore, Feingold gets a lot of respect on constitutional issues. He supports the popular interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and now that the country's fear of terrorists is apparently low enough that we've begun valuing our civil liberties again, his record against breaches of personal privacy could go over well.