Who would be the most partisan SCOTUS judge who could realistically be appointed?

[THG]

It can be from both the liberal and/or conservative sides (assuming Republican victories in 24/28).

And this includes people who can realistically be appointed, so no joke answers.  

[Donerail]

"Partisan" is a bit of a boring question — the most "partisan" possible nominees on the conservative side (i.e. adhering to the priorities of the Republican Party) would be someone like Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton, with a long history in politics and more likely to prioritize the immediate political effects of a decision.

I am going to redefine your question to more broadly ask about, realistically, the most biased possible nominees (not using that in a pejorative sense, just saying judges that are known to lean strongly toward a particular ideology). On the conservative side, the names that stand out to me from Trump's proposed Supreme Court lists are Allison Rushing (CA4), Jim Ho (CA5), and Lawrence VanDyke (CA9); Neomi Rao (CADC) also stands out as a name not on Trump’s list, a bit of a surprise, who would also be a logical pick for a future GOP president.

Most liberal is a harder question to answer, because liberals have had fewer opportunities to appoint judges and just haven’t built the organized legal apparatus to rival the Federalist Society. The conservative legal movement feels like it selects for ideological radicalism in a way that the more amorphous liberal legal movement doesn’t have structures in place to reward.

Because of the timing of who’s been President when, a lot of the most liberal judges are also very very old and thus unlikely to be Supreme Court nominees. When you mention liberal judges, I think of people like Jack Weinstein (who died this year), Stephen Reinhardt (died in ’18), and maybe someone like William Fletcher (CA9, 76) or Richard Paez (CA9, 74). Lynn Adelman, who’s a district court judge in Wisconsin, wrote a very blunt article recently criticizing the Supreme Court, which may be what you’re intending by partisan. But Judge Adelman was 1. passed over for a 7th Circuit spot by the Obama administration and 2. is now 81.

The answer to your question on that side might be someone like Nina Pillard (CADC)? She’s fairly liberal and has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, though she’s probably missed her window now. Maybe you pull someone from academia? Inshallah Biden will stack the courts and give us a much more interesting shortlist.

[David Hume]

"Partisan" is a bit of a boring question — the most "partisan" possible nominees on the conservative side (i.e. adhering to the priorities of the Republican Party) would be someone like Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton, with a long history in politics and more likely to prioritize the immediate political effects of a decision.

I am going to redefine your question to more broadly ask about, realistically, the most biased possible nominees (not using that in a pejorative sense, just saying judges that are known to lean strongly toward a particular ideology). On the conservative side, the names that stand out to me from Trump's proposed Supreme Court lists are Allison Rushing (CA4), Jim Ho (CA5), and Lawrence VanDyke (CA9); Neomi Rao (CADC) also stands out as a name not on Trump’s list, a bit of a surprise, who would also be a logical pick for a future GOP president.

Most liberal is a harder question to answer, because liberals have had fewer opportunities to appoint judges and just haven’t built the organized legal apparatus to rival the Federalist Society. The conservative legal movement feels like it selects for ideological radicalism in a way that the more amorphous liberal legal movement doesn’t have structures in place to reward.

Because of the timing of who’s been President when, a lot of the most liberal judges are also very very old and thus unlikely to be Supreme Court nominees. When you mention liberal judges, I think of people like Jack Weinstein (who died this year), Stephen Reinhardt (died in ’18), and maybe someone like William Fletcher (CA9, 76) or Richard Paez (CA9, 74). Lynn Adelman, who’s a district court judge in Wisconsin, wrote a very blunt article recently criticizing the Supreme Court, which may be what you’re intending by partisan. But Judge Adelman was 1. passed over for a 7th Circuit spot by the Obama administration and 2. is now 81.

The answer to your question on that side might be someone like Nina Pillard (CADC)? She’s fairly liberal and has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, though she’s probably missed her window now. Maybe you pull someone from academia? Inshallah Biden will stack the courts and give us a much more interesting shortlist

Rao was removed from list because of Josh Hawley was unhappy about her position on abortion.

Rushing was not that partisan, she voted against GOP position in a voting case in 2020.

Ho is similar to Scalia (in terms of writing style) and Thomas (originalist with little deferrance to precedents). He may be hardline in things like abortion right, but not sure how partisan he would be. He openly rebutted challenges to birthright citizenship repeatedly.

Hardline originalists are not necessarily partisan. The most partisan judges on GOP side may be some clerks of Alito.

[Ferguson97]

As long as the president's party controls the Senate, they could nominate basically anyone with a sufficient resume and the seat would be filled. "Too far right" and "too far left" wouldn't be concerns.

[David Hume]

As long as the president's party controls the Senate, they could nominate basically anyone with a sufficient resume and the seat would be filled. "Too far right" and "too far left" wouldn't be concerns.

Depend on margins. In 2018, William Pryor was clearly to the right of Kavanaugh. But it would be hard for him to get the votes from Collins and Murkowski.

[SInNYC]

I dont see partisanship as the same as left/right. I would consider Kagan as one of the more partisan judges (and perhaps most partisan) on the D side, but she is definitely not on the left as both Sotomayor and the former RBG were to her left.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He's already been appointed and has been on the Court since January 31, 2006.

[David Hume]

I dont see partisanship as the same as left/right. I would consider Kagan as one of the more partisan judges (and perhaps most partisan) on the D side, but she is definitely not on the left as both Sotomayor and the former RBG were to her left.

Kagan voted against criminals to preserve precedents with Roberts and Alito, and similarly in serval other cases, although never the fifth vote. Sotomayor almost always votes with D position.

[progressive85]

The liberal justices never seem to be as deviously evil as the conservative ones are... Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh come across as petty, mean-spirited, downright vicious, vindictive, and so biased that you would never want them as the judge on your own case before a court.  It seems like they more than all the others already pre-determine the votes on the case, as if they are just another congressman with an ideological axe to grind - always secretly plotting something. 

Kavanaugh's crybaby antics at the confirmation hearing were a joke and a huge embarrassment to the Supreme Court.  I believe that he did do all of that ing stuff that the woman said he did.  He was pushed onto that court by a bunch of right-wing senators that liked his ideology.  Why they just didn't dump this d-bag and go with somebody just as conservative but much more likable is beyond me - but it was an "own the libs" moment and they did it anyway.

I don't believe that the Court should have any partisan-affiliated justices at all but it's a vicious cycle because if one party is throwing all of these crazed ideologues on the court, to balance that out the other party's going to do the same thing and it becomes a war to see who can get the court to be turned to their dark side... it's quite horrific what the Supreme Court has become.  It's nothing like it used to be, that's for sure.  It's become so tarnished in the 21st century... no credibility whatsoever, and it's totally political.  I just don't buy this 9 elegantly dressed superiors in robes that are above politics all the time... it's a bunch of B.S.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

[David Hume]

The liberal justices never seem to be as deviously evil as the conservative ones are... Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh come across as petty, mean-spirited, downright vicious, vindictive, and so biased that you would never want them as the judge on your own case before a court.  It seems like they more than all the others already pre-determine the votes on the case, as if they are just another congressman with an ideological axe to grind - always secretly plotting something. 

Kavanaugh's crybaby antics at the confirmation hearing were a joke and a huge embarrassment to the Supreme Court.  I believe that he did do all of that ing stuff that the woman said he did.  He was pushed onto that court by a bunch of right-wing senators that liked his ideology.  Why they just didn't dump this d-bag and go with somebody just as conservative but much more likable is beyond me - but it was an "own the libs" moment and they did it anyway.

I don't believe that the Court should have any partisan-affiliated justices at all but it's a vicious cycle because if one party is throwing all of these crazed ideologues on the court, to balance that out the other party's going to do the same thing and it becomes a war to see who can get the court to be turned to their dark side... it's quite horrific what the Supreme Court has become.  It's nothing like it used to be, that's for sure.  It's become so tarnished in the 21st century... no credibility whatsoever, and it's totally political.  I just don't buy this 9 elegantly dressed superiors in robes that are above politics all the time... it's a bunch of B.S.

Are you sure? In pretty much all key and controversial cases, Kavanaugh wrote apologetical concurrences to make him seem moderate. His style is almost polar opposite to Thomas and Gorsuch.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

The liberal justices never seem to be as deviously evil as the conservative ones are... Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh come across as petty, mean-spirited, downright vicious, vindictive, and so biased that you would never want them as the judge on your own case before a court.  It seems like they more than all the others already pre-determine the votes on the case, as if they are just another congressman with an ideological axe to grind - always secretly plotting something. 

Kavanaugh's crybaby antics at the confirmation hearing were a joke and a huge embarrassment to the Supreme Court.  I believe that he did do all of that ing stuff that the woman said he did.  He was pushed onto that court by a bunch of right-wing senators that liked his ideology.  Why they just didn't dump this d-bag and go with somebody just as conservative but much more likable is beyond me - but it was an "own the libs" moment and they did it anyway.

I don't believe that the Court should have any partisan-affiliated justices at all but it's a vicious cycle because if one party is throwing all of these crazed ideologues on the court, to balance that out the other party's going to do the same thing and it becomes a war to see who can get the court to be turned to their dark side... it's quite horrific what the Supreme Court has become.  It's nothing like it used to be, that's for sure.  It's become so tarnished in the 21st century... no credibility whatsoever, and it's totally political.  I just don't buy this 9 elegantly dressed superiors in robes that are above politics all the time... it's a bunch of B.S.

Are you sure? In pretty much all key and controversial cases, Kavanaugh wrote apologetical concurrences to make him seem moderate. His style is almost polar opposite to Thomas and Gorsuch.

I’m not sure how doing exactly what Thomas would do but makes laughably bad, and very often just strait up pretending that the relevant law and/or precedent says the exact opposite of what it does, excuses is better.

The court has been pure Calvinball since O’Connor retired.

[MarkD]

I can't help but look at this question in the past tense rather than the future tense. To me, it is patently obvious that we've already had SCOTUS Justices who were partisan hacks. Their names were William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. They perpetrated a blatantly partisan decision in December 2000 in the case of Bush v. Gore. Neither the text of the Constitution, the intended meaning behind that text, nor any precedent required the five of them to render that decision. So they did it because they wanted to. And the author of the per curiam opinion -- almost certainly Kennedy -- had the temerity to say ....

None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the Members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution's design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.

In 230 years of Supreme Court history, the Bush v. Gore decision is the only decision that was obviously motivated by partisan loyalty. The Electoral Commission of 1877 had five Supreme Court Justices who also made blatantly partisan decisions, but that was not the work of the Supreme Court itself.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Partisan" is a bit of a boring question — the most "partisan" possible nominees on the conservative side (i.e. adhering to the priorities of the Republican Party) would be someone like Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton, with a long history in politics and more likely to prioritize the immediate political effects of a decision.

I am going to redefine your question to more broadly ask about, realistically, the most biased possible nominees (not using that in a pejorative sense, just saying judges that are known to lean strongly toward a particular ideology). On the conservative side, the names that stand out to me from Trump's proposed Supreme Court lists are Allison Rushing (CA4), Jim Ho (CA5), and Lawrence VanDyke (CA9); Neomi Rao (CADC) also stands out as a name not on Trump’s list, a bit of a surprise, who would also be a logical pick for a future GOP president.

Andrew Hanen also comes to mind, although he's far too old for a SCOTUS nomination.