Other Ideas For Supreme Court Nominees

by: Chris Bowers

Fri May 01, 2009 at 14:03


Most of the early talk on potential replacements for David Souter on the Supreme Court has centered around gender and ethnicity. But, there are some other factors that should be considered in the pick:
  1. What about someone who didn't go to an elite school? Just about every name that has come up focuses on Ivy League, Stanford and University of Chicago graduates, professors, and deans. While this may come as a shock, there are brilliant minds that didn't attend or teach at such institutions. For example, Diane Wood attended the University of Texas. I like that.

  2. What about someone who isn't a judge? Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court after serving as a judge for four years, but really he would have been eligible just from his work at the NAACP. Why not look at other people involved with the legal system who are not judges, such as lawyers and elected officials? What about environmental or civil rights lawyers who have led monumental legal victories in our own time? The lead lawyers on gay marriage cases in Iowa and Massachusetts come to mind, even if I don't know their names.

  3. What about someone who is actually a liberal? I know that this is a really craaazy idea, but perhaps it should at least be considered. Sonia Sotomayor, who has a great personal story and seems to be getting the most buzz, is considered a moderate by her colleagues. However, the court lurched to the right when Samuel Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, and that is an imbalance that needs to be addressed. Finding a liberal is just as vital to restoring diversity on the court as finding a woman or a minority.
There is more at play here than just gender and ethnicity. Also, there are many women and minorities who also meet he guidelines listed above. Let's take a broader view.
Chris Bowers :: Other Ideas For Supreme Court Nominees

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Other Ideas For Supreme Court Nominees | 86 comments
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
The early speculation is largely disconcerting.  There are other people capable besides Ivy League Deans and moderate Circuit Judges.

And a liberal would be pretty nice.

#2 seems especially important to me (0.00 / 0)
As we've seen on the SCOTUS, ideologies that seem fixed can change, and it's always a little harder to be certain of what you're getting in that department.  So I place less importance on #3.

#1 and #2 seem to boil to the same principle: get someone with an outsider's perspective.  As much as I would love to see someone who has just never had anything to do with Harvard Law School get appointed to something, I think the professional component is probably more important in that regard.  

I see less difference between a moderate judge who went to Harvard and one who went to Texas than I see between a moderate judge and a progressive litigator, or a moderate judge and a progressive legislator/constitutional officer.  Thurgood Marshall is definitely a great example of a non-judge appointee, but so is someone like Earl Warren, who's previous experience was as governor of California.  I haven't a ton of thought to what legislators/constitutional officers I'd like to see appointed, but someone like Russ Feingold jumps to mind as a pretty erudite progressive legislator with a legal background...

Yes we Kang

Warren (0.00 / 0)
Warren was also Attorney General of California and District Attorney for Alameda County.  He even had some private practice experience.  

I'd rather have at least one non-judge on the Court.  Different view points can help.

[ Parent ]
All excellent points (0.00 / 0)
While I disagree with you about Thurgood Marshall's jurisprudential legacy - his greatest contributions came as an attorney - the notion that justices should be plucked from within a very narrow field serves no purpose except to further feather the beds of the privileged elite.  

As an incredibly popular president who's a former Con Law lecturer at U of C, Obama has the ultimate "home court advantage" in selecting a left-wing intellectual counterpart of a Scalia or Alito.  Obama needs to put some political capital on the line here.  Let the GOP continue to marginalize itself by taking up time better devoted to solving the economic crisis, health care, education, &c., &c. on a pyrrhic filibustering effort dedicated to furthering a radical right wing agenda very few people support in the first place.  

it's hard to say (4.00 / 2)
how liberal a judge is before he's given lifetime tenure.

Earl Warren, for example, was expected to be a moderately conservative judge. But he turned out to be very liberal.

Expected By Whom??? (0.00 / 0)
Earl Warren, for example, was expected to be a moderately conservative judge. But he turned out to be very liberal.

There was nothing in his record to support that expectation.  Moderately liberal, perhaps.  And he did turn out to be much more solidly liberal.  But he was clearly out of the Hiram Johnson tradition of the California GOP's progressive wing, which is why he won such overwhelming electoral victories.

On two occasions--1938 for Attorney General and 1946 for Governor--Warren won the Republican primary, the Democratic primary and the Progressive primary.  You don't do that as a moderately conservative politician.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Wrong about Marshall (0.00 / 0)
Actually, Thurgood Marshall served several years on the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals before LBJ appointed him to the Supreme Court.
Ah-didn't know that (0.00 / 0)
will update. Thanks!
[ Parent ]
His key credential (0.00 / 0)
though, was as lead counsel for the plaintiff in Brown v. Board of Education...
[ Parent ]
Well, Not Just That One Case (4.00 / 3)
He executed the entire strategy that culminated in Brown.

He wasn't the author of the strategy, but he executed it flawlessly, and in so doing he was clearly one of the most influential lawyers in American history--he did what no elected official, not even President--could have done.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
He was a winner (0.00 / 0)
He won an overwhelming percentage of dozens of Supreme Court cases as the NAACP's lead lawyer.  Brown is just the most famous.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Well, wait. (4.00 / 1)
Charles Hamilton Houston was the author of the strategy.  Marshall took the lead upon Houston's untimely passing at the age of 55 in 1950.
[ Parent ]
Addendum on Marshall (4.00 / 2)
It's true that Marshall was Solicitor General when Johnson appointed him to the Supreme Court, but he had left the Second Circuit to take that position.  So it's true he wasn't a judge AT THE TIME OF HIS SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENT, but he did have judicial experience on the country's second-highest court.
Looking at past Solicitor Generals (4.00 / 2)
Several of them have made it to the Supreme Court.

Clinton's last Solicitor General, Seth Waxman, won a Supreme Court case that upheld habeus corpus for Gitmo detainees according to Wikipedia, which should score brownie points for him on the left if Obama considers him.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
No. 3 is very important. (4.00 / 2)
We need an actual liberal on the Court.  
Maybe not... (0.00 / 0)
Someone here suggested yesterday (I have to look up who), that someone like Souter, who was the most liberal judge in practice, managed to keep himself in good graces with the conservative majority and helped them move them left on many, many cases.

Someone like that is more valuable than a blazing liberal who could be an alienating voice, even in their own wing...

Considering who Obama is, the first choice is probably where he's going... making us upset at first, but, hopefully, begin better than expected in the long run...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Solicitor (4.00 / 1)
Someone with a proven track record getting liberal decisions out of the court would be the best of both worlds.
[ Parent ]
Why Not A Conservative, Then? (4.00 / 2)
If a moderate would be better than a liberal at advancing a liberal agenda, then a conservative would be even better!


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
It wasn't my idea... (0.00 / 0)
But, I thought it to be an interesting analysis worthy of consideration...


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
A Good Rule Of Thumb (4.00 / 5)
Any time you hear an argument like that, just ask yourself, "would anyone make this argument if the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' were flipped?"

If there's coffee on your keyboard 5 seconds later, then it's really not "an interesting analysis worthy of consideration" after all.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
well you don't want to pick an asshole (4.00 / 3)
that's for sure.

But there is such a thing as a really brilliant liberal with a winning, open-minded personality who can influence the other judges.

I'd like to know more about Diane Wood, Wardlaw, and these others. Are they tough, inquisitive, capable of sparring with Scalia, etc.? They shouldn't be introverts or arrogant bastards, that's for sure.

[ Parent ]
Texas (0.00 / 0)
is most certainly an elite law school: certainly better than Cornell and probably Penn as well.

It is, after all, the school that rejected the Shrub.

Your broader point is well taken but written in ignorance of the fact that Harvard Law School is in fact a fourth branch government.  

Law schools (0.00 / 0)
I looked at the law schools of 30 Supreme Court Justices, mostlt recent with a sprinkling of well known names.  Here's the breakdown which is heavily Harvard,Columbia, and Yale:

Harvard-Harry Blackmun, Louis Brandeis, William Brennan, Stephen Breyer, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Felix Frankfurter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg (also Columbia), Anthony Kennedy, Lewis Powell (also Washington & Lee), Antonin Scalia, David Souter.

Columbia-Benjamin Cardozo, Charles Evans Hughes, William O. Douglas, John Jay, Ruther Bader Ginsburg (third year only).

Yale-Byron White, Samuel Alito, Potter Stewart, Clarence Thomas.

Stanford-Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist

Northwestern-John Paul Stevens

Texas-Tom Clark

Northwestern-John Paul Stevens

UC-Berkley (Boalt Hall)-Earl Warren

NY Law School-John Harlan II (also Rhodes Scholar)

William & Mary- John Marshall

St. Paul College of Law-Warren Burger

Centre College-Fred Vinson

That's pretty top heavy with elite schools.

[ Parent ]
One more (0.00 / 0)
U of Alabama-Hugo Black
[ Parent ]
Russ Feingold for the Supreme Court (4.00 / 1)
Not necessarily my choice to deprive the Senate of a leading progressive voice, but let's just think outside the box.  

There have been times when Orrin Hatch has been touted as someone who might go from the Senate to the Supreme Court, so why not look at Democratic Senators.  Feingold is a member of the Judiciary Committee with a law degree from Harvard.  Are there any Democratic Senators out there who seem plausible?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

Well, Kim McLane Wardlaw (0.00 / 0)
seems pretty perfect to me, from what little I know, from both a political and judicial standpoint. But I'm still reading ...
have any links for Wardlaw? (0.00 / 0)
who is she?
[ Parent ]
I had a dozen of them, five minutes ago! (4.00 / 2)
She's the one who said that the school violated the rights of that 13-year-old girl when they strip-searched her for aspirin. First Hispanic woman on her circuit, or something. Good on pregnancy leave, homeless issues, privacy. Looks like a smart liberal to me--but again, I'm still poking around.

The objection seems to be 'too liberal', or something. As if they wouldn't say the same if Obama tapped Susan Day O'Connor for this ...

[ Parent ]
they can't be too liberal for me (0.00 / 0)
for Obama they all will be, sadly.
[ Parent ]
bec this court is salivating to "revisit" all the landmark rights cases, it's vital (4.00 / 1)
to have someone strong on rights and privacy and voting, etc.
[ Parent ]
I'm not endlessly slavish to Wikipedia, but her entry is reasonably (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
thks -- (0.00 / 0)
i've never heard of her
[ Parent ]
kinda mixed record (0.00 / 0)
i'd say, but overall ok.
[ Parent ]
Wardlaw is on WaPo's list, so she's likely, i bet -- DC-approved (0.00 / 0)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...  --

... Most often mentioned as possibilities are two appeals judges, Sonia Sotomayor of New York and Diane P. Wood of Chicago, along with Obama's new solicitor general, Elena Kagan. Vice President Biden has been charged with drawing up a list of possible nominees, according to the source close to the court.

... White House advisers have been drafting lists of potential replacements virtually since Obama took office, and the list is said to also include Stanford University law professor Kathleen M. Sullivan, Kim McLane Wardlaw of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm and Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears. Souter, who has been on the court since October 1990, was nominated by President George H.W. Bush on July 25, 1990, to a seat vacated by William J. Brennan Jr. He was confirmed by the Senate on Oct. 2, 1990. ...


[ Parent ]
Obama just broke into Gibbs - spoke of non-ideological and bipartisan consulting -- (0.00 / 0)
ugh.

It should be a real activist -- someone who's dedicated their career to justice and rights (like Marshall).

it won't be tho.

it won't even be a liberal, i bet.

I'd like to see Tribe or someone like him, maybe -- but he's too old. It haas to be someone 60 or younger.

Spitzer would be perfect, i'd say. and who's Goldman Sachs' favorite lawyer? (0.00 / 0)
I'm betting it'll be a corporate lawyer.

I'd love to see Spitzer -- seriously.

[ Parent ]
Spitzer? (4.00 / 1)
Mr. "I love prostitutes" Spitzer...

Yeah.... that's not going to happen...


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
I don't think it necessarily will be someone young (0.00 / 0)
If I read Obama correctly, he will go for someone with a thick resume, which makes it more likely to be someone older, and he will have an aversion to a blatantly political tactic of appointing someone relatively young for the purpose of locking up a seat for decades as part of a desire to de-politicize the legal process.

I don't think Obama would shy away from his former teacher and campaign advisor Laurence Tribe because of an expectation that he should appoint someone younger.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
but he's also fight-avoidant -- a long paper trail makes it harder to get someone thru (0.00 / 0)
-- i think it won't be anyone with a long record of advocacy or anyone not already pre-approved by DC (maybe a younger Vernon Jordan type?)
[ Parent ]
It better be someone young (0.00 / 0)
Clarence Thomas was 43 when he was appointed. Roberts and Alito were early to mid 50s.

I'd try to find someone in their 40s, barring that maybe somebody in their early 50s. Our bench isn't as big as it should be, because Clinton's term was 8 years ago and the GOP held up most of his nominations in his second term.

[ Parent ]
Bench (4.00 / 1)
If you limit yourself to court justices, this is certainly true.  However, I think we'd be better served by someone with a different background anyway.
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't worry about what Gibbs says... (0.00 / 0)
...or even what Obama says...

That's just politico-speak to appease the masses.  No matter who he appoints, the republicans will claim that she's a communist, and the White House knows it...

They can "dress up" the nominee any way they choose... and they will tell everyone how evenhanded and moderate they are even if it's the most liberal person in the world...

So far, everyone on the short list is "ideologically pure" enough for most on our side...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
not to appease the masses -- to appease DC (0.00 / 0)
and it's not just politico-speak -- with him or the DNC anymore.
[ Parent ]
Well, if you read his statement... (0.00 / 0)
...he's basically endorsing a very progressive judicial view, and then slips in the "will consult with both parties" to please David Broder...  The consultation will be, "The republicans nhate the pick."  "Oh well!"

I think he'll pick someone good that we will like...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
here are his comments today, from Scotusblog -- (4.00 / 2)
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/w...

... Praising Justice Souter, the president said: "He has shown what it means to be a fair-minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no  particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda. He consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task:  reaching a just result in the case that was before him. He approached judging as he approaches life, with a feverish work ethic and a good sense of humor, with integrity, equanimity and compassion, the hallmark of not just being a good judge but of being a good person."

On the selection of a replacement, President Obama said he will seek someone with a "sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity... someone who understands justice is not about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of peoples' lives. Whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation." He said he views "that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

He will "seek someone who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role...who shares [his] respect for the constitutional values for which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding for how to apply them in our time."

...


[ Parent ]
Ideology can be a surprise (4.00 / 1)
You don't always get what you expect with supreme court appointments... Souter was appointed by Bush Sr. and was famously expected to be a "home run" for conservatives. As the court has been pulled right recently, Kennedy has become a tad more moderate. Likewise, Eisenhower certainly had no clue what was in store when he appointed Earl Warren.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
a lifetime and record, tho, is very telling -- as opposed to Robert's lack of paper trail (4.00 / 1)
for instance.
[ Parent ]
that worries me about Sotomayer (4.00 / 2)
She could go from moderate to conservative real fast once she's on the SC. I don't know enough about her to say anything definitive, but if someone is considered "moderate" then I'm suspicious.

There are many great progressive female judges and lawyers who would be great for the court. Obama just needs to do his homework.

Oh, and don't listen to anything Schumer says (he has already talked up Sotomayer).  Schumer is the guy who told us Michael Mukasey would make a great Attorney General.

[ Parent ]
Eisenhower Was A Fool (4.00 / 2)
As I pointed out above, Warren's record was clearly out of the progressive wing of the GOP.  He clearly was more liberal than expected, and more of a real guiding presence than expected. (He was very patient and determined in getting a unanimous decision on Brown, for example.)  But Eisenhower was surprised early on, which only shows how little he knew of Warren's politics.  

Similarly, Souter was a stealth candidate, and all the expectations were build up based on what amounted to gossip.  In fact, Souter actually was a true conservative in one of the original meanings--he believed in continuity, gradual, cumulative change, and respect for existing institutions and practices--all of which put him distinctly at odds with the reactionary movement conservative crowd.  

My current Nuremberg Defense view of Obama makes me rather pessimistic that Obama will choose someone more liberal than Souter, much less an actual liberal.  Heck, given what he says about Larry Summers in the NYT interview, I don't think Obama would recognize and actual liberal if one came up and bit him on the ass.

(And, of course, that's hardly the way to get yourself appointed to the Supreme Court, even if, counter to my intuition, it actually does get you recognized.)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
My suspicion of what Obama wants (0.00 / 0)
Is what you would call a "classical progressive".  I think Obama would prefer someone who is process-oriented and legalistic rather than outcome oriented, someone who would fit with Oliver Wendall Holmes famous alleged quote about being a court of law, not a court of justice.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Historical note (0.00 / 0)
I believe Eisenhower once called the Warren appointment his biggest mistake and that his second biggest mistake was appointing William Brennan to the court.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
I Think The Exact Phrase Was (0.00 / 0)
Someone asked him about his mistakes, and he said his two biggest ones were sitting on the Supreme Court.

Obviously, his underestimated Nixon.  He was really not a good judge of civilian character.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
One thing I giggle over (0.00 / 0)
Is that someone said that he could advised against Brennan upon finding out who his parish priest was.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
who are the big ACLU lawyers? they've been excellent lately in getting stuff uncovered (4.00 / 1)
--truly excellent.
Young and Naive (4.00 / 2)
Back when I was young and naive, I thought ideology really didn't matter for the Supreme Court.  After all, it isn't about what you want the Constitution to say, it is about what it actually says.

Ha.

Today I realize that any decision that works its way up to the Supreme Court is controversial within the legal community and can go either way constitutionally.  In other words, one can almost claim that ideology is the only thing that matters.

It looks like Obama's Solicitor General would be a solid pick, but I'd rather she gets some years under her belt before moving on the Court.

----

On another note, has there ever been a case of someone moving further to the right than expected?  

It seems to me that constitutional courts are small 'c' conservative by makeup, but tend toward liberal in practice.  The reason is these courts are required to weigh all the available evidence in adapting old laws to current conditions.  In a very real way, that is liberalism.  For example, California's gay marriage ruling and Kansas' Intelligent Design ruling both came from Republican, theoretically conservative judges.

You can (4.00 / 1)
argue Byron White, who was appointed by Kennedy after working in RFK's justice department, and who dissented in Miranda and in all of the substantive due process cases moved right.  
[ Parent ]
i think they usually are consistent -- Warren and Souter are the only 2 (0.00 / 0)
i know of who weren't what they were supposed to be.
[ Parent ]
Neither Blackman (4.00 / 1)
nor Stevens were supposed to be as liberal as they were supposed to be.  You can even make that argument about Brennan.  
[ Parent ]
Here's The Thing (4.00 / 4)
There's actually a history behind this.  During the early 19th Century, the Democrats kept appointing justices to the Supreme Court with the intention of undermining Marshall's influence, and almost without exception, Marshall won them over.  There's a combination of factors that tend to favor the influence of a strong Chief Justice taking precedent over the thinking of new appointees.  I wouldn't put Roberts in that same category, but neither would I totally discount the cumulative impact of 30 years of hegemony-building on the conservative side.

That's one good reason not to appoint someone who's too malleable, but rather someone who's got their own body legal thinking to keep faith with.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Justices Regularly Moved To The Right In The 19th Century (0.00 / 0)
See, for example, A People's History of the Supreme Court.

And Clarence Thomas was far more conservative than he let on.  But that just plain old deception and fraud in the hearing process.  He didn't really change.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Geoghegan (0.00 / 0)
How about Tom Geoghegan?
A young liberal female (4.00 / 2)
Must be under 55, female, liberal, and BRILLIANT. I'm confident Obama and Biden will do a good job of vetting someone.

And as a man, I can say that it really is imperative that a woman be picked. In fact, Obama should select a woman with every one of his picks, until there are at least 4-5 women on the court. It's ridiculous that we've only had 2 female justices in our country's history.

we need to put tons more women on all the lower courts too == (4.00 / 1)
on every district ct
[ Parent ]
this makes the Specter thing all the more appalling -- (4.00 / 3)
he was evil to Anita Hill -- pure evil.
He Wasn't PURE Evil (4.00 / 1)
Try as he might, there's always too much stupid in Specter for him to be pure evil.  But he gave it his best shot, anyway.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
you remind me, Paul, of (0.00 / 0)
the "3% less evil" saying (that seems to get more true every cycle)
[ Parent ]
My biggest concern... (4.00 / 1)
Is that Obama goes for someone unexpected and far more "moderate" than he really needs to go for right now, just because that seems to be his mantra now ("I will consult both parties", etc).  You're absolutely right about Alito, and I would hope that Obama realizes that... plus, is there any advantage to getting to 60 now or not?   He should appoint the best possible person and just hold the Democratic caucus together.
. (0.00 / 0)
Delicate balance here. If you go minority then you necessarily go with qualities that are mundane and expected. You don't get away with picking a miniority AND picking a nonjudge AND picking non ivy schooler. Didn't work for Bush, why would it work for Obama?
Bush picked Federalist Society, no? (0.00 / 0)
isn't that whose list he used?
[ Parent ]
I don't understand what you are getting at. (0.00 / 0)
I was mainly referring to Harriet Miers. It's too easy to pick apart people that lack traditional qualifications. You take away general white male privilege from that and it gets even harder.
[ Parent ]
*easier (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
here you go -- "overwhelming Federalist Society bias." (0.00 / 0)
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/... -
Justice Department report shows overwhelming Federalist Society bias.

As ThinkProgress has noted, the Bush administration has extremely close ties to the Federalist Society. Political appointees in the Justice Department, such as Monica Goodling, assessed U.S. attorneys partly based on whether they were members of the right-wing group. In its new report, the DOJ Inspector General reveals that the Department's internship and Honors programs were also heavily pro-Federalist Society: ...

WaPo -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/... -- Conservative Federalist Society Can Expect Its Status to Shrink --

... The liberal Alliance for Justice estimates that 46 percent of Bush's appointments have ties to the Federalist Society.

At one of the group's events last month, Bush bragged that he has appointed more than a third of the federal judiciary that will be in place when he leaves office. While he has appointed slightly fewer appeals court judges than Clinton -- 61 to 65 -- Bush's mostly young appointees will soon make up nearly two-thirds of the judges at that level, and Republican-appointed judges are in the majority on 10 of the 13 circuits.  ...


[ Parent ]
There's something very racist and sexist in what you are saying. (0.00 / 0)
You are equating "minority" with "nonjudge" and "non ivy schooler." The last two categories have to do with competence, and the first doesn't.  
[ Parent ]
Those who don't think number 3 is important (0.00 / 0)
are missing the point.

Yes, I know, judges sometimes don't turn out to be what the president who appointed them expected.  Like David Souter.  An even better example: Earl Warren.  Yeah, it happens.

But sometimes it doesn't happen.  Are the Republicans unhappy with Alitto, Roberts, Scalia or Thomas?  Sometimes supreme court justices DO do what they were expected to.  DUH!

If your logic was valid, one should never care the slightest who any president appoints, because "ya never know".

Gimme a break.  These are lifetime appointments that can change the entire legal framework of the nation.  You have to make your evaluations based on what you know, not what you hope for.  And then allow for the possibility of pleasant or unpleasant surprises.  But the possibility of surprises should not influence the decision.

But that isn't even the main reason why you're wrong.  The whole point of appointing a true liberal is to provoke the right wing into an ideological battle that they'll lose, to rip some serious holes in the Federalist Society/strict constructionist orthodoxy that the GOP has imposed on us.  Appointing a true liberal is an OPPORTUNITY to have that discussion.  That opportunity is lost by appointing a non-controversial "moderate".

And even if we'd lose the battle, it could still have that effect.  Some of the most politically effective Supreme Court appointments the GOP has made were ones that were defeated.  Nixon appointed Haynesworth and Carswell, who went down in flames.  Then he "settled for" Rehnquist.  And let's not forget Robert Bork.  Think the GOP didn't get mileage out of that defeat?  

Appointing a true liberal is the best thing that Obama could do.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

. (0.00 / 0)
The difference is that legalistic thinking is somewhat separate from political ideology. Which is why you don't always get what you expect.

So in that sense, it's nice to have someone who can be pinned down in the types of rulings they make rather then just blanket ideological affiliation. Conflation of the two is misguided.

[ Parent ]
Not sure what you're saying. (0.00 / 0)


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
Not sure what you're saying here. (0.00 / 0)
I agree that you don't always get what you expect.  I disagree with those who go beyond that and say that that's a reason why "none of this matters, anyway".  We have to react based on what our best estimate is.  Nothing else makes sense.  Are you agreeing or disagreeing with that?

Legal philosophy may be somewhat different than political philosophy, but I don't buy it much.  "Strict constructionism" is largely a cover for racism and people like Rehnquist have as much as admitted it.  Note that few if any "strict constructionists" have any objection to going to war without Congressional declaration of war.  And the strict constructionists gave us Bush v. Gore.

I want a nominee who DOES have a LONG paper trail that Republicans can pick over and will stand up for that paper trail and spit their questions back in their faces.  If you believe, as I do, is largely based on lying to people about what you're offering, then their justices need to hide what they really think.  I don't see liberals having the same problem.


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
By your argument (0.00 / 0)
The best thing for Democrats is to have a strong liberal get defeated.

Haynesworth and Carswell were attempts to pander to the South.  When they didn't get confirmed, Nixon had to settle for Harry Blackmun.  Rehnquist was the replacement for John Harlan.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
here (0.00 / 0)
she'd be good (0.00 / 0)
i think -- definitely better than Sotomayor if it's gonna be a Hispanic woman.
[ Parent ]
Minor note (0.00 / 0)
Judge Wood may have been educated at UT, but she teaches at The University of Chicago Law School.
i wonder if it'll be a Chicago person? (0.00 / 0)
and are they any that are also DC-approved? (i don't think Obama will go outside the DC-approved choices)
[ Parent ]
It's a decent list (0.00 / 0)
I can think of five people who were on the Chicago faculty with Obama who might plausibly be considered -- Wood, Kagan, Sunstein, Lessig and Strauss.
[ Parent ]
not Sunstein i hope -- that's who i think he will pick, actually, (0.00 / 0)
if not for this vacancy then for the next.
[ Parent ]
Great idea from the other post -- Elizabeth Warren (0.00 / 0)
Regional Diversity (0.00 / 0)
My wife has been arguing, and I find myself persuaded, that the Court is very Eastern and very Catholic. Having someone from a different area of the country seems like it may also help.

I also like the idea of someone with a breadth of life experience, and think it would be nice if it were someone who had been an elected official.  

Other Ideas For Supreme Court Nominees | 86 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox