BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice

[Lunar]

Sonia Sotomayor will be the pick.  She grew up in the Bronx.  Obama can't resist that.

Obama = J-Lo?

pleasase discuss

[Lunar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_S._Karlan

She's incredibly bright and talented, but may be too liberal

[Lunar]

Kathleen Sullivan would be interesting since she a lezzie

[Lunar]

... supposing all one cares about is being Hispanic and female


Obama may decide he wants a brilliant legal thinker who can hold ideological sway over [future?] conservative and moderate members of the court.  That's the temptation of selecting someone like Diana Wood or Pam Karlan.  Also, Sotomayor has health problems.


It will be a women though.  Everyone thinks that the Supreme Court should have at least two women on it, and it's possibly no one but Ginsburg will retire in the next few years... replacing one woman with another.  Also, women justices are less likely to reverse their stance on Roe.

[Lunar]

Not bad sir.  You predicted that Koh was going to be a contender too... although his latest partisan troubles certainly mean that won't happen.  Artur Davis isn't too different than Holder in demographic profile and Artur obviously has other ambitions (probably would have been a better pick too), although Larry Summers was never going to be Secretary of Treasury due to his statements on women...  although I have a feeling he's more influential in the department than Geithner.

No one expected Souter to be the first to retire except Souter's friends, cool.


Although you predicted Lieberman would caucus with the GOP

[Lunar]

Like I said though, while Sonia Sotomayor checks all the boxes, Obama is a Constitutional student himself and may prefer to hire a persuasive advocate of judicial philosophy he believes in, rather than simply voting as he'd prefer.  Sotomayor may be the next one nominated, but if Obama can profoundly impact the aggregate judicial philosophy of the court, isn't that more important than temporarily placating Hispanic groups three years before he runs for reelection?


Obama is searching for the next this guy, if possible.  Ironic because Souter replaced him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan,_Jr.

[Lunar]

Why is it better to appease racial minority groups now, rather than closer to the election when he needs their vote?  Their legislative influence isn't needed to pass the Obama agenda, why not closer when the voters will actually matter?  Besides, even the interest groups are probably going to be offended by something he does between now and the election and forget about the appointment anyway.

[Lunar]

it is usually better to follow the "What have you done for me lately?" doctrine,

Agreed, especially with minority groups, and this shouldn't be underestimated.  It's not like the Hispanic caucus in Congress is an unreliable vote, and voters, as a whole, don't have much of a memory.  They'll feel more positive towards Obama on election day by appointing a Hispanic later in his term than right now.  Hispanic groups are intentionally keeping a low public profile this time around, although they are pushing hard privately.

but in this situation this is the gift that can keep on giving and shows a proactive agenda.

Only if Obama consistently elevates Hispanics to top posts throughout his term does this show a proactive agenda.  If it's just going to be one, it's best it's done later.  No one is voting for him until 2012, showing something like that is 90% irrelevant now.

It also is usually harder for a president to get their first SC nominee through, while the ones that follow usually face less (although still considerable) resistance.

All the more reason to get one of the white, liberal, female, haha possibly gay [if Sullivan], justices through now who can be a persuasive voice on the court. A Hispanic isn't an especially controversial person to nominate, even if especially because it'd be an uncontroversial "first."  Just getting someone that checks all of the boxes but doesn't offer any additional ideological threat to conservatives would be easier to get in later.  That's what Sonia does.

[Lunar]

The first two of those are debatable,

CONSIDER YOURSELF DEBATED

[no charge]

But bear in mind Obama may not get another one of these before the 2012 elections.

Unlikely though.  Possible.  And he's relatively likely to be reelected too, judging from historical standards.



Again, I stress that overall influence on the court is more important than simply deciding on the liberal side of issues.  If you select someone like Brennan, your influence is infinite.  I severely contest you contention that Obama is better off "placating everyone," only the women's interest groups hold considerable sway with Obama's legislative goals in his first term.  Getting in a 15% more liberal justice is not his priority, I agree, but Obama is someone with particular interest in Constitutional law and he may not settle that easily.

[Lunar]

Again, I stress that overall influence on the court is more important than simply deciding on the liberal side of issues.  If you select someone like Brennan, your influence is infinite.  I severely contest you contention that Obama is better off "placating everyone," only the women's interest groups hold considerable sway with Obama's legislative goals in his first term.  Getting in a 15% more liberal justice is not his priority, I agree, but Obama is someone with particular interest in Constitutional law and he may not settle that easily.

I would agree. I am all for an influential liberal voice on the court, and I'm sure Obama will hate backing down on his gut choices, but there is no conceivable reason why he would give up the political capital necessary to do that so early into his first term.

It's a partisan issue, not really a moderate hero one.  As long as Franken gets seated and normal Congressional committee policies are followed, very little political capital will need to be spent.  Everyone who's following this and knows Congressional politics knows Obama can choose anyone he wants and that this is something Obama almost certainly feels worth spending political capital on while Congress privately hashes out a health care plan.  Obama has a personal fascination with the Supreme Court, it's not a side show to him!!!

Marc Ambinder, for example, said [paraphrased] "SPOILER ALERT: Whoever Obama picks is guaranteed to be nominated" and Ben Smith said [paraphrased] "I don't see how anyone Obama picks to the right of Noam Chomsky doesn't get nominated"

[Lunar]

You know, if a Hispanic Catholic is appointed, it'd ironically decrease the court's diversity in another way since 2/3rds of the court would then be Catholic... ironic but not really relevant

[Lunar]

You know, if a Hispanic Catholic is appointed, it'd ironically decrease the court's diversity in another way since 2/3rds of the court would then be Catholic... ironic but not really relevant

If Stevens follows in retirement and is replaced by Elana Kagan or another Jew or Catholic, there will be no Protestants on the Court.

The current Catholics though Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy, ironically vote pretty much how I imagine evangelicals would, on a balance, prefer

[Lunar]

You know, if a Hispanic Catholic is appointed, it'd ironically decrease the court's diversity in another way since 2/3rds of the court would then be Catholic... ironic but not really relevant

If Stevens follows in retirement and is replaced by Elana Kagan or another Jew or Catholic, there will be no Protestants on the Court.

The current Catholics though Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy, ironically vote pretty much how I imagine evangelicals would, on a balance, prefer

This is ironic because there's 18 Democratic senators ad 8 Republican ones, yet Republicans rely 100% on Catholic Supreme Court officials to hold sway in decisions.  Sotomayor, would naturally reduce that 100% number somewhat as I doubt she'll be on too many sides with Thomas when the chips are down, but it's interesting.

[Lunar]

The odds of Obama appointing another Brennan, in terms of ideology or influence, are slim to none.  Ideologically, I don't think there is really anyone around today who shares Brennan's views.  Perhaps one of his former clerks, but the only name that comes to mind is Merrick Garland, and at 57 he might be too old.

In terms of influence, as well, we won't have another Brennan.  For 3 decades Brennan was the single most important Justice on the Court; nobody Obama appoints will be able to sway votes the way Brennan could.  Anthony Kennedy is still the most important Justice, no matter who Obama appoints.

No matter how persuasive Obama's justice is at convincing Kennedy, rly?

[Lunar]

I'll not, but why shouldn't Obama try to select someone intellectually and legally persuasive?  The reason Brennan was influential was because he could convince people such as Kennedy [and more conservative justices].  Obama won't probably get up to that level, but I don't see any reason not to shoot for the moon and select the most brilliant, persuasive, [female], justice possible.  Going for the token Hispanic is best done closer to election day, no?

[Lunar]

Updated Intrade numbers (again, low volume):

Sotomayor 40.0
Kagan 20.0
Wardlaw 20.0
Granholm 12.0
Sears 12.0
Wood 10.0

(All of the above are women btw.)

I'd put my money on Wood (pause) because of the University of Chicago connection.

And Wood, I hear, has a sharp legal mind

[Lunar]

since those betting loved people like Hillary when she wasn't even vetted by the Obama campaign, they might be just an aggregate representation of sensationalism

[Lunar]

I'm starting to think its Kagan and not Sotomayor.  Kagan is younger and more liberal.

Her #1 strategic qualification is that the Senate has already approved her

[Lunar]

I saw that, I don't buy it.  The White House is keeping the cards close to its chess at the moment.

If anything, these things *could* be leaked from a low level official to let the conservative oppo be focused on them [not that some of these aren't also on the official list too].

Napolitano's advantage is that she also has already been cleared by the Senate.  I don't know if Obama wouldn't rather have someone with a distinguished Constitutional opinion, hmm.

[Lunar]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/11/1928014.aspx

The SCOTUS shortlist?

According to a couple of sources in the know, there appears to be a working short list of about six names for President Obama’s Supreme Court pick. The co-frontrunners (in no particular order): Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Obviously, folks can slice this list all they want: Five are women; one’s Hispanic; one’s male; and all are in their late 40s or early 50s, except two (Wood, 58, and Garland, 56).

Keep an eye on Napolitano. For this pick, it would be surprising if Obama named someone he didn't either know well or trust personally. Wood, Kagan, and Napolitano all fit this bill (Wood taught at the University of Chicago with Obama, and Kagan and Napolitano already have top slots in the administration). As for Napolitano, remember that she endorsed Obama early on (despite Emily’s List pressure to do otherwise). And from people familiar with the president's thinking, he's been as impressed with Napolitano as anyone in his cabinet. They click. That matters....

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/scotus_handicapping_a_short_list.php

[Lunar]

Merrick Garland would be excellent.  He's a former Brennan clerk, so he probably learned quite a bit from his boss.

No need to spend too much time thinking on the token white male.

[Lunar]

Picking Lisa Madigan would make it seem as if he is clearing the primary for his basketball buddy

[Lunar]

This looks very bad.  Obama does not want to look bad.  Therefore, she would be a poor choice.

I like to post comments on things.  This is my comment.  Therefore, I posted my comment that it would seem like Obama was choosing her for reasons other than picking the most qualified candidate.  Then you read the comment.

[Lunar]

This guy thinks Wood:
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/013644.html

[Lunar]

Potential Dark Horse?
http://www.law.stanford.edu/directory/profile/15/