Regardless of what Republicans — and Democrats — think about the gubernatorial candidacy of former Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton, he has made a couple of good points in regard to naming a replacement for departing state Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro.

Nigro was defeated for retention for a new 10-year term in the Nov. 8 general election — fallout from the controversial middle-of-the-night July 7 pay raise approved by the General Assembly for legislators, judges and executive branch officials. As a result of Nigro's defeat, it will be Gov. Ed Rendell's responsibility to pick someone for the high court vacancy, which will take effect next month. That person will serve until January 2008.

Because of Nigro's departure, that seat will be up again for election in November 2007, rather than November 2015.

Whoever is governor three years from now presumably will have a similar high-court task. Sandra Schultz Newman, who was successful in her retention bid on Nov. 8 by a small margin, will be allowed to serve only three more years, rather than 10, due to the mandatory retirement age of 70.

Rendell should exercise the best judgment of which he is capable regarding his selection for the Nigro seat. Certainly, the governor knows that how he handles this selection will be either an asset or liability for his re-election bid next year.

And, how he handles this selection will be a source of campaign discussion about how he might handle Newman's seat, in the event that he is in office when she steps down.

Boosting Rendell's re-election chances obviously wasn't on Scranton's mind when he entered the discussion about Nigro's seat, but the governor would do well not to disregard the former lieutenant governor's views on the vacancy decision. Scranton is on the right track in what he has said about that pending decision.

In a letter to the governor, Scranton said, "Citizens will not tolerate a selection pulled from a short list of politically active supporters or friends. We expect a new justice that demonstrates political independence, the highest degree of competence and experience and a commitment to upholding the spirit and plain meaning of the constitution."

The voter disgust leveled at Nigro and Newman in November shows that, at least for now, state residents can't be counted on to tolerate the kind of political shenanigans that had become so commonplace in the state capital. Rendell would be wise to heed Scranton's suggestion, not only to avoid controversy but also to show respect for the court.

While Scranton also was right in calling on the state Senate to hold confirmation hearings for Rendell's appointee, he also should have reminded the Senate that it should conduct such proceedings with dignity, avoiding the kind of partisan brouhaha that has become so much a trademark of the General Assembly.

Rendell has said that it is too early to speculate on whom he might choose to replace Nigro. He is right in not rushing his decision.

Whomever he selects will be put under a virtual magnifying glass and, really, that is as it should be.

It is to be hoped that whomever Rendell chooses will be strong on upholding all provisions of the state constitution, including those dealing with lawmakers' pay and how lawmakers consider proposed legislation. The current Supreme Court, with Nigro and Newman occupying two of the seats, has been lax in ruling against questionable legislative practices.

Rendell can make a positive imprint on the high court on the basis of the coming selection or he can botch the opportunity. Hopefully he will choose the better of the two options.