Source: Breitbart News Network
So who would be Obama’s list of replacements? As the first legitimate litmus test of his presidency, how far left would he venture? Another woman? A minority?
It will be interesting to see if the repubs still believe every nominee deserves an up or down vote. It was so much the right thing to do the last 8 years.
I don’t know the Federal court system well enough to name names. IMO there would be tremendous political pressure for Obama to nominate a woman. Obama would definitely nominate someone left of center though how far left we won’t know until the nomination. Since Obama taught constitutional law, I am pretty confident he’ll nominate someone experienced and well-qualified to be on the court, much like the Clinton nominees. I would be upset of he nominated someone “young, liberal and with a pulse”. We don’t need a “liberal Clarence Thomas”, we need the best jurists on the SCOTUS we can get. I may disagree politically with Roberts and Alito, but I can’t question their qualifications.
Well, Roberts may have been a tad young to become Chief Justice, but he’s doing fine. Except for skipping the teleprompter class, but come on - who’s going to ever want to see the most recent presidential swearing in? There have been 55 others, nothing new to see here. 
Congressional independence is next on their list of newly re-discovered opinions, after deciding that is really is not treason to question a president (as long as the president is a democrat), and the Congressional Republicans’ rekindled love of fiscal responsibility. Isn’t it nice to see a couple get back together after eight years apart, and just in time for Valentine’s Day!
Obama might try to strengthen his ties with Hispanic voters by naming the first Hispanic Justice. There are a lot of available candidates, albeit many are conservatives appointed by Bush. Maybe Richard Paez of the Ninth Circuit.
I wonder if the New York Times will support tactics that would go even further than the “nuclear option” of eliminating the power of the filibuster. Or is that a good thing? (Cite.)
And, of course, we all know that stalling judical nominees is a dreadful thing, so nobody should do that.
Regards,
Shodan
And to expand, Obama says he screwed up the selection process of his cabinet. Maybe he will do better with a Supreme Court nominee.
Just picking “a” woman won’t do it. Ginsberg is fairly liberal, so there won’t be any distractions about balancing the court.
There’s been mention of Diane Wood, who is a judge in Chicago. Let’s hope none of the recent troubles with corruption in Illinois supervene in her case. Or a couple of judges in San Francisco, Kim Wardlaw or Judge Margaret McKeown. That’s fairly far to the left - not sure if Obama wants to go that far.
Is there anyone that Obama used to work with where he taught that would be reasonable?
Regards,
Shodan
I think he probably has to appoint a woman here. Bush didn’t get much criticism for replacing O’Connor with Alito, but I think there would be a backlash to the idea of the court returning to all male membership for the first time in almost 30 years. I don’t know how far left he can go but he’s probably required to keep the status quo, at least.
Yes, Latinos might not be happy with that. But Obama is likely to appoint Stevens’ replacement before his term is up and he could appoint a Latin or other nominee.
It’s not impossible that he appoint a Latina, though some Latinos might still be unhappy at that.
I don’t know how many Latinas sit on the federal bench, and I don’t know how their credentials match up to whatever other leading candidates are out there. I’ll look it up if I can. But if he has to pick between a woman and a Latino I think circumstances would force him to choose a woman.
ETA: not sure I can find a list but it looks like there are more federal judges than I expected. And it goes without saying, I hope Ginsberg’s cancer was caught early and doesn’t become a bigger problem.
This NYT article Sunday was inadvertently very timely.
The accompanying graphic shows that of the current court, five of them are among the top ten most conservative jurists of Supreme Court history and only Bader-Ginsberg is on the list of the top ten most liberal.
To keep the balance where it is he’ll need to get in someone very liberal for the current court. Identity politics, female, Hispanic, whatever, doesn’t matter here. Not allowing the court to shift to the Right by virtue of putting in someone less liberal than her does.
Obama will need to use up some political capital here when the time comes. (Sorry, pancreatic Ca? Early or not, that is a very bad prognosis - the time will come soon. Unfortunately.) His trying to find middle ground pragmatism will not do. “Full-throated liberal” is an absolute must.
This whole thread seems a bit ghoulish to me. I haven’t heard that the prognosis is hopeless yet although pancreatic cancer is very serious indeed. For all we know, she could be treated and recover and sit the remainder of this term of the Court and maybe someone else will predecease her.
I’m just pissed off for not picking her in the Dead Pool.
Nonetheless, I was struck by something -
followed by
So one of the most liberal Justices in history is a “relative moderate”. 
Which is why the notion of ‘retaining the balance of the Court’ is a non-issue. No one short of a member of the Socialist Worker’s Party is ‘liberal’, so anyone who is pro-Roe v. Wade is going to be hailed as a moderate. Therefore, identity politics trumps all, and any woman Obama picks will do.
Regards,
Shodan
What about Cardozo? His ancestors were Portugese. Does that count as Hispanic?
If there’s been any President who can be expected not to indulge in tokenism, it’s this one. I’ll be very surprised if he were to keep “the female seat” in anything like the way Bush kept “the black seat”.
Shodan, do you not see the possibility that the Court has almost always been far more short of liberals than you are of straw?
Kim Wardlaw is half hispanic.
Well, that’s just the point - if you define one of the most liberal members of the Court as a moderate, then obviously you have defined the term ‘liberal’ almost out of existence.
It’s like the studies a while back where the media is far more likely to label someone as a extreme right-winger, or a conservative, while politicians who are just as far to the left as their counterparts are to the right get called “moderate” (as happens here, so there is no need for a cite) or get no label at all.
Obama will pick someone who is reliably pro-Roe v. Wade, so she (or he) will sail thru. He may even try for someone who will overturn Heller, since, according to one of his aides, Obama called that one wrong during the campaign.
Regards,
Shodan
If you use the composition of the Court instead of the population as your standard to define “liberal”, THAT defines it out of existence. But that’s what you’re doing.
The Ironimeter is pegging and starting to smoke.
Shodan you do realize that the context was in comparison to the substance and style of Brennen and Marshall?
Bolding mine.
Both of those justices are listed as more liberal than Bader-Ginsberg, Marshall as the most liberal in the history of the court. And more so she is stylistically very moderate in comparison.
The NYT assumes that Obama will appoint a liberal; their question is what sort of liberal? A full-throated one or a moderate and soft-spoken one?
Shouldn’t he just pick the best guy/gal around?
Minority/sex may be a tie-breaker, but he (no-one) should start with “I need a latin, liberal, left-handed, red-sox fan, pro-choice, mid-west, two kids judge”.
I just hope that Obama’s constitutional-law background makes him pick the right guy/gal (even though she/he’ll be pro-choice, but that’s a given).