SCOTUS list "says almost nothing about what Obama wants in a judge—beyond a confirmation"

[usregimechange]

The shortlists being bandied around—including this one we produced last year at Slate—have been repurposed from the lists we saw when Justice David Souter resigned last spring. Former Solicitor General Elena Kagan's stock is rising, Janet Napolitano's has plummeted, and there seems to be at least some sense that Obama should replace the court's lone Protestant (Stevens) with another. Beyond that, the shortlist everyone is blogging about from Bloomberg News today seems awfully short. It names Kagan and federal appeals court judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland as the three serious contenders. The White House has declined to comment on the existence of any such shortlist or who might be on it. Regardless of the depth and breadth of their experience, if Kagan is named, the fight will be about executive power; if Wood is picked, the fight will be about abortion; and if Garland is picked, there won't be much of a fight about anything.

The most interesting thing about this week's three-person shortlist is who isn't on it. With the exception of Judge Wood, there's nobody on this list to reassure liberals that the court will not continue to move rightward over the course of the Obama presidency. Notably absent are the lawyer/politicians such as Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, which suggests that nobody thinks Obama will risk naming someone with the real-life experience so desperately lacking at the court. Also missing from this court are the legal academics—like Kathleen Sullivan, Laurence Tribe, Cass Sunstein, Harold Koh, or Pam Karlan—who would bring a deeply worked-out constitutional vision to the court. If they are really not being considered, it means the White House isn't looking for a big liberal voice again this time around. Perhaps more intriguing, nobody on this list really has the kind of inspiring American story that Sonia Sotomayor brought to her confirmation. While Obama managed to change the subject from judicial ideology to personal biography last time around, there are few names on this shortlist that shout, "Hey, doing something historic here!"

As an anthropological document, the Bloomberg News list reveals a good deal about the general fatigue of the court-watchers. We've become so reliant upon the old scripts about "activists" and "umpires" and abortion and religion that we prefer them to experimenting with new ones. Whatever populist rage emerged following the Citizens United decision probably won't translate to the naming of a populist nominee. The Bloomberg shortlist speaks volumes about the White House and its political calculus, as well as the political rut in which we all find ourselves. It also says almost nothing about what Obama wants in a judge—beyond a confirmation.

http://www.slate.com/id/2249929/


If Obama moves SCOTUS to the right he will get zero 2012 help from me, zero.

[FBaggins]

1. Going to be hard NOT to...

The two most-likely-to-retire justices are the most progressive on the court. It would be difficult to find another Stevens out there.

Luckily, the net effect won't be too significant unless he picks an actual RW judge. The center-point of the court doesn't move to the right in this scenarior... it's just that a few 7-2 decisions become 8-1.

But yes, the President's selection of Sotomayor is one of the few bright spots for me. If that tarnishes I would be substantially less likely to vote for him (though I'm not excited about the possibility now).

[sandnsea]

2. Kagan, Wood and Garland would all be excellent

Their credentials are all stunning, especially Kagan's.

How much time did you spend on research on these three before you spouted your 2012 bullshit?

[liberalpragmatist]

3. If those are the three, then I hope it's Wood

She's the most liberal of the three and a VERY good judge. She would also add a third woman to the court and as a graduate of U. Texas Law, she would achieve some much-needed academic balance, given that the entire rest of the Court (and Kagan and Wood) all are Harvard or Yale grads.

[usregimechange]

4. Maybe you do not read my journal...

[ruggerson]

5. don't worry about her

the subtext of what she writes has been crystal clear for years now.

[sandnsea]

6. I didn't see anything on them... n/t

[usregimechange]

7. On who? I follow judicial appointments from the district level through the circuit and to SCOTUS

Do you have a better idea for following this process closer? BTW, what have you been doing to speak on this subject, aside from being an ass?

[sandnsea]

8. Look. If you have an argument to make - then make it

Based on facts. I've seen NONE. Just a bunch of rants and conjecture. If you've got journals on why the three names would cause you to jump ship in 2012, post it. Otherwise, you're the one being an ass.

[usregimechange]

9. I have been following Kagan and Wood since before Souter left

and I needn't produce opposition research on the 3 you mentioned to believe Karlan is the best choice. I have defended the other prospects for the most part. And, I didn't say anything about sending the three you mentioned up I said that if he "moves SCOTUS to the right" I will jump ship. In other words if he appoints someone to the right of Stevens. I don't think Kagan and Wood would do that.

[sandnsea]

10. So you're ranting about nothing

and making accusatory posts about a Dem President, based on nothing, and all you do is discourage people and make them concerned that they're going to lose the court when there is not one shred of evidence anywhere to support your hysteria.

[usregimechange]

11. I want a liberal nominee and it is possible that Obama will not appoint one, do I know for sure?

that he will? Of course not. But it is possible and that is what I oppose. I am concerned he will choose political expediency over making the best selection. I don't have to prove what I have presented as a possibility. So kindly go away and go nitpick some other liberal cause.

[usregimechange]

12. And frankly, I believe some preassure needs to be applied against his doing so

He might not even blame me for that but I am sure you would find some reason to object.

[usregimechange]

13. And note my advocating for Goodwin Liu, care to object about that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x528400

Maybe there is a better choice? Whose to say that since I like him that _____ person would be better? After all, I have no evidence that he is better than some other nominee, I have presented it...

I am liberal. Care to object about that? Progressive should be the term? Should have been capitalized?

[sandnsea]

14. Who do you think you are?

That you think you need to post daily rants about what this President needs to do to keep your vote...

especially when decisions like Goodwin Liu are proof that he makes decisions just fine.

Do you just not know how to express an opinion without lamblasting a Democratic politician somewhere?

[usregimechange]

15. When was the last time I posted a rant about Obama? The truth is my comments here about him...

have been vastly positive. Since you said daily, you must have evidence of my ranting about him every day this week right?

[SoCalDem]

16. Think outside the box.. He should ask Hillary

She's a historical figure already, but no other woman has been First Lady, Senator, serious contender for president, then Sec of State..why not add Supreme Court Justice to the mix?

Can't you see republican heads exploding? How could they NOT confirm her?