Non-Breyer SCOTUS Nominees

[Kingpoleon]

First assume that Kruger or Abrams replaces Breyer. Now, assuming something happens to either Roberts or Thomas in 2025-2027, who do you think would be on the shortlist?

Democratic:
Neal Katyal
Sri Srinivasan
Paul Watford
Kenji Yoshino*
Michelle Friedland
Goodwin Liu


Republican:
Amul Thapar
James C. Ho
Halil Suleyman Ozerden
Rodney Smith
Ada E. Brown
Hala Jarbou
Bernard M. Jones

[brucejoel99]

I'd assume that Jackson would replace Breyer before Abrams would, given her previous shortlisting & how her lack of relation to a political ally would mean no accusations of a conflict of interest or something like that.

To answer the actual question at hand, though, Tino Cuéllar & Goodwin Liu would presumably be the best guesses for a Democratic shortlist, if for no other reason than the fact that they'd still be ~55 (or younger) in 2025. Ditto Thapar for a Republican shortlist.

[politicallefty]

I was always hoping a Ginsburg retirement or Court expansion would elevate Goodwin Liu. I'm still disgusted that Democrats allowed him to be filibustered. Fortunately, Jerry Brown stepped in and gave him a seat on the CA Supreme Court, so he's still very much in contention for a future nomination. I've long wanted to see him on the Court. Democrats would have to control the Senate though, as there's no chance he'd get through a Republican Senate.

Srinivasan always struck me as someone that Democrats wanted to have in place as a relatively easy confirmation to replace Kennedy or one of the conservatives. I'm not sure how a relatively easy confirmation works now, unless one side holds a commanding majority in the Senate.

[Kingpoleon]

I actually think Hala Jarbou is a pretty likely pick, especially considering the conservative tendency toward Catholics.

[freepcrusher]

does Thurgood Marshall have a grandson - that's who you should pick to replace Thomas.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

does Thurgood Marshall have a grandson - that's who you should pick to replace Thomas.

Lord no. Thurgood Marshall was a wonderful attorney; he might have made a great legislator, as he certainly acted like he was one while on the Court, but as a judge, he was an absolute disaster.

[Kingpoleon]

Lord no. Thurgood Marshall was a wonderful attorney; he might have made a great legislator, as he certainly acted like he was one while on the Court, but as a judge, he was an absolute disaster.

Have you become an originalist now, or merely a Kagan-esque textualist?

[Donerail]

Lord no. Thurgood Marshall was a wonderful attorney; he might have made a great legislator, as he certainly acted like he was one while on the Court, but as a judge, he was an absolute disaster.

Have you become an originalist now, or merely a Kagan-esque textualist?

You don't need to get into the philosophy of the matter to criticize Marshall. It was widely known that Marshall basically let his clerks write all his opinions, with minimal input from the man himself. I do not believe he was a "disaster", as his instincts were good and he almost always ended up on the right side of decisions ("follow Brennan" will usually lead you to the correct outcome), but not the sort of judge you'd want to propose as a model jurist.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Lord no. Thurgood Marshall was a wonderful attorney; he might have made a great legislator, as he certainly acted like he was one while on the Court, but as a judge, he was an absolute disaster.

Have you become an originalist now, or merely a Kagan-esque textualist?

Neither. Rather, it's that in the absence of an explicit Constitutional provision to the contrary, I believe courts should give full deference to the legislative branches at both the Federal and State level. I strongly advocate the primacy of the legislative branch. Courts have no business determining if laws are good, wise, or popular, just if they are Constitutional. (Similarly, I believe that Chevron deference is sound judicial practice with respect to giving the executive branch the primary function of interpreting legislative intent.)

[politicallefty]

Lord no. Thurgood Marshall was a wonderful attorney; he might have made a great legislator, as he certainly acted like he was one while on the Court, but as a judge, he was an absolute disaster.

Have you become an originalist now, or merely a Kagan-esque textualist?

Neither. Rather, it's that in the absence of an explicit Constitutional provision to the contrary, I believe courts should give full deference to the legislative branches at both the Federal and State level. I strongly advocate the primacy of the legislative branch. Courts have no business determining if laws are good, wise, or popular, just if they are Constitutional. (Similarly, I believe that Chevron deference is sound judicial practice with respect to giving the executive branch the primary function of interpreting legislative intent.)

I generally think those that proclaim "legislating from the bench" are merely just screaming about a decision they didn't like. I would agree with your general premise about legislative primacy (I would actually go further and argue for legislative supremacy). I think the only issue with INS v. Chadha is that it violated bicameralism, not the Presentment Clause or separation of powers. I would argue that only a one-house legislative veto is impermissible, but a two-house legislative veto would be allowed under an appropriate paradigm.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Lord no. Thurgood Marshall was a wonderful attorney; he might have made a great legislator, as he certainly acted like he was one while on the Court, but as a judge, he was an absolute disaster.

Have you become an originalist now, or merely a Kagan-esque textualist?

Neither. Rather, it's that in the absence of an explicit Constitutional provision to the contrary, I believe courts should give full deference to the legislative branches at both the Federal and State level. I strongly advocate the primacy of the legislative branch. Courts have no business determining if laws are good, wise, or popular, just if they are Constitutional. (Similarly, I believe that Chevron deference is sound judicial practice with respect to giving the executive branch the primary function of interpreting legislative intent.)

I generally think those that proclaim "legislating from the bench" are merely just screaming about a decision they didn't like.

Sort of like how many people sing the praises of federalism only when they don't control the national government.

That said, the Lochner era demonstrates that conservative judges have been just as willing as progressive judges to legislate from the bench.