Ta, Frank.
Anybody think it’ll happen again soon?
[Mandatory Homer]
Now who’s being naive?
[/Mandatory Homer]
I think Obama would like to nominate a non-judge. That list Czarcasm linked to includes three non-judges - Kagan, Granholm and Napolitano. And all of them were in the running last year, too. But I don’t know if circumstances will allow it. If he nominates someone with no judicial experience he may be accused of picking somebody unqualified. It’s just asking for it.
Sandra Day O’Connor was a Republican member of the Arizona State Senate, including becoming majority leader.
On the other hand, it’s the perfect answer to those who are whining about “activist” judges.
So, you think reason and evidence will be useful when arguing with the tighty-rightys about this? Interesting.
I honestly don’t think that there’s any way that an Obama nominee won’t be labeled an “activist judge” by the fearmongers* on the right. Hilary would be accused of being a likely “activist judge” long before any confirmation process starts, purely because many on the right dislike her so much.
That said, this is purely a trial balloon. Someone leaked this just to give right-wing news** anchors something to hyperventilate about that will never actually happen to distract from what will happen, just like “deem and pass.”
*I’m not saying that everyone on the right is a fearmonger, nor that everyone on the right listens to fearmongers, but that there are fearmongers on the right.
** and “Opinion”
That was actually going to be my point. I was even taught in high school that it wouldn’t happen. (Although they actually taught it like it was mandated.)
Sure looks like the Great Mentioner this time was Orrin Hatch, BION. Perhaps it wasn’t intended to distract his party’s base, but to motivate them to support their planned opposition to whoever?
If so, I think it was a bad idea. The right has spent a couple of decades building up Hillary Clinton as a bogeyman. Now that her name’s been mentioned, Obama could nominate Bernie Sanders and the right would say “at least he’s not as bad as Hillary.”
According to Toobin’s book on the Supreme Court, The Nine, President Clinton seriously contemplated appointing Governor Mario Cuomo to the Supreme Court in 1993, but ultimately appointed Ginsburg after Cuomo dithered too much about whether to take the position.
Earl Warren was a woman?!
Earl Warren paid someone else to refinish his cabinets?
Hugo Black, an staunch supporter of the New Deal, was nominated directly from the Senate – 20-some years earlier he had some minor judicial experience that lasted less than a year, but he was basically a judicial neophyte when he donned the robe. He became one of the most respected (and, for law students like me, frustrating) jurists on the bench, where he lasted over 30 years.
There’s a lot of talk in the liberal blogoshpere, at least, that nominating a politician is a good idea because the Court is an essentially political institution, and navigating those waters would be good experience. It might also help make the Court more cohesive, as it’s been much more politically divided in the last 10/15 years than at any time since the era of the Four Horsemen. (Which is sorta weird, given that prior to the Sotomayor nomination, it was made up of four arch-conservatives, three centrists, and Stevens.) 5-4 decisions don’t give anybody confidence that the Court is actually doing justice, whether you’re on the winning side or not. On that basis, Sec’y Clinton would be a fine choice – she’s a polarizing figure to the public, it’s true, but she’s good friends with most of the Republicans in the Senate. And the fact that she could develop those relationships at all with people who spent years pillorying her (not to mention dragging her marital problems through the newspapers for cynical political advantage) is a testament to her skills as a politician and a builder of coalition. Frankly, her age is her worst feature as a candidate.
–Cliffy