Who will replace Souter?

[Anonymous]

When Justice Souter retires, who will replace him? Does anyone have any ideas about what is likely to come next? I know nothing about the names being circulated.

[Anonymous]

Unattractive as race or gender politics may be compared to "best person for the job", three points are pretty clear: there are quite a few very qualified people, you can't always predict how a choice will work out, and the racial and gender make-up of the Court say a lot about the country. Therefore, it seems to me almost a slam-dunk (if I may be forgiven a Tenetism) to predict Sonia Sotomayor, an hispanic woman with a very strong resume and a fairly centrist reputation.

[Anonymous]

A leftist, obviously. There are thousands of them from which to choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unattractive as race or gender politics may be compared to "best person for the job", three points are pretty clear: there are quite a few very qualified people, you can't always predict how a choice will work out, and the racial and gender make-up of the Court say a lot about the country. Therefore, it seems to me almost a slam-dunk (if I may be forgiven a Tenetism) to predict Sonia Sotomayor, an hispanic woman with a very strong resume and a fairly centrist reputation.

ugh. I think that would be as bad a pick as Breyer, and I think Obama can and will do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unattractive as race or gender politics may be compared to "best person for the job", three points are pretty clear: there are quite a few very qualified people, you can't always predict how a choice will work out, and the racial and gender make-up of the Court say a lot about the country. Therefore, it seems to me almost a slam-dunk (if I may be forgiven a Tenetism) to predict Sonia Sotomayor, an hispanic woman with a very strong resume and a fairly centrist reputation.

ugh. I think that would be as bad a pick as Breyer, and I think Obama can and will do better.

I don't get the comparison to Breyer or what is so "ugh" about either. Are they too liberal or not liberal enough? Clearly we should not expect Obama to appoint a Scalia (I hope!!!!!!), but I also don't think he will appoint someone with a really clear liberal background (Ginsberg is the only one on the present Court who fits that description in terms of her pre-Court experience).

The conservative choir. of course, considers Justice Kennedy to be a leftist, so there is bound to be an outcry against whoever gets the nomination.

[Anonymous]

Qualifications? I don't even think you have to have a law degree to sit on the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A leftist, obviously. There are thousands of them from which to choose.

Not obvious. Specter's no longer the ranking minority member on Judiciary. How will they cram a liberal through the process? I don't think it can be done.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Not obvious. Specter's no longer the ranking minority member on Judiciary. How will they cram a liberal through the process? I don't think it can be done.

They don't need a Republican vote in committee. In 2006, no Judiciary committee Democrat vote for Alito and he's on the Court. Also, the Republicans may want to recall how they reacted to Democratic threats of a filibuster by threatening to do away with filibusters. The shoes are on the other feet now.

Since the Republicans will go ape shit no matter who Obama nominates, he should choose a 19-year-old far-left lesbian of color whose grandparents are active triathletes in their 100s (and whose parents are somewhat younger and in good health). We could get a good 80 years out of such a justice.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Since the Republicans will go ape shit no matter who Obama nominates, he should choose a 19-year-old far-left lesbian of color whose grandparents are active triathletes in their 100s (and whose parents are somewhat younger and in good health). We could get a good 80 years out of such a justice.

That sounds good. And as his next nominee, to really drive them wild, Jeff Steele.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Qualifications? I don't even think you have to have a law degree to sit on the court.

Correct. Obama should be floating the name of someone like Rachel Maddow, since whoever he nominates is going to be trashed by the right, he might as well start out with someone who is used to it. She's smart enough, articulate enough, and doggone it, I really like her!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not obvious. Specter's no longer the ranking minority member on Judiciary. How will they cram a liberal through the process? I don't think it can be done.

They don't need a Republican vote in committee. In 2006, no Judiciary committee Democrat vote for Alito and he's on the Court. Also, the Republicans may want to recall how they reacted to Democratic threats of a filibuster by threatening to do away with filibusters. The shoes are on the other feet now.

Since the Republicans will go ape shit no matter who Obama nominates, he should choose a 19-year-old far-left lesbian of color whose grandparents are active triathletes in their 100s (and whose parents are somewhat younger and in good health). We could get a good 80 years out of such a justice.

HE HE HE!!!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not obvious. Specter's no longer the ranking minority member on Judiciary. How will they cram a liberal through the process? I don't think it can be done.

They don't need a Republican vote in committee. In 2006, no Judiciary committee Democrat vote for Alito and he's on the Court. Also, the Republicans may want to recall how they reacted to Democratic threats of a filibuster by threatening to do away with filibusters. The shoes are on the other feet now.

Since the Republicans will go ape shit no matter who Obama nominates, he should choose a 19-year-old far-left lesbian of color whose grandparents are active triathletes in their 100s (and whose parents are somewhat younger and in good health). We could get a good 80 years out of such a justice.

Yeah, but I thought they need one minority vote to end debate in the Judiciary Committee in order to move to a vote, which I assume they got for Alito despite the Democratic nays in the final vote. Is that not true, or is the rule toothless or do I have it wrong all together?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah, but I thought they need one minority vote to end debate in the Judiciary Committee in order to move to a vote, which I assume they got for Alito despite the Democratic nays in the final vote. Is that not true, or is the rule toothless or do I have it wrong all together?

Apparently there is a vote on the nomination itself, but then a second vote on reporting that nomination to the full Senate. The second has normally been treated as a technicality, so in the case of Alito all the Dems voted against the nomination, but then still reported it to the floor. If the Judiciary Republicans would refuse to report a nomination to the floor, they would essentially be filibustering in committee. As far as I can tell, this has never happened before. There are a lot of reasons it wouldn't happen now and, if it did, Democrats have a couple of ways to get around it. I heard Orin Hatch on the radio this morning saying something to the effect that Obama wants a nominee who understands the plight of normal people and that's a problem. If that will be the Republican spin, in this economic environment, they will be buried. One of the biggest complaints among "normal people" is that Washington is out of touch with them.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not obvious. Specter's no longer the ranking minority member on Judiciary. How will they cram a liberal through the process? I don't think it can be done.

They don't need a Republican vote in committee. In 2006, no Judiciary committee Democrat vote for Alito and he's on the Court. Also, the Republicans may want to recall how they reacted to Democratic threats of a filibuster by threatening to do away with filibusters. The shoes are on the other feet now.

Since the Republicans will go ape shit no matter who Obama nominates, he should choose a 19-year-old far-left lesbian of color whose grandparents are active triathletes in their 100s (and whose parents are somewhat younger and in good health). We could get a good 80 years out of such a justice.

There already was a gay justice. He is retiring now.

[Anonymous]

It's a long shot, but Judge Ann Williams from Chicago would be great.