Why the love for Sunstein? He seems to have been a supporter of some of Bush’s worst excesses and a supporter of federal executive power. (according to Wikipedia)
Almost certainly yes. There have been 15 recess appointments to the Supreme Court. I think the only one who didn’t go on to get confirmed by the senate afterwards was John Rutledge, who was a crazy jerk.
I’m a big fan of judicial minimalism and a strong executive.
Okay, then, Sunstein fits the bill. Personally, I’d rather put my faith in the courts than the President to make sure my rights are protected.
(Acknowledging courts sometimes get it wrong and Presidents would sometimes get it right)
Interesting! Ignorance fought, thanks! I would never have guessed that this would be considered constitutional. Once you put me on the trail, though, I found an interesting overview article by the Congressional Research Service.
That was a joke.
Of the serious contenders (define that category however you’d like), who’s the youngest? It seems to me that installing a young judge, with a long career ahead of em, would have more impact than an old one who’s soon to retire.
I don’t know who’s considered serious and who isn’t. But yes, there’s a preference for younger judges for that exact reason. Roberts and Alito and Sotomayor could all be one the court for 20 or 30 years if their health holds up and Obama’s likely to go down that road the same way Bush did.
Here’s the age of (I think) everybody mentioned in this thread so far:
Kagan: 49 (4/28/1960)
Karlan: about 50 (1959)
Granholm: 51 (2/5/59)
Patrick: 53 (7/31/56)
Sunstein: 55 (9/21/54)
Koh: 55 (12/8/54)
Garland: 57 (11/13/52)
D. Wood: 59 (born 7/4/50)
Benavides: 63 (2/3/47)
Echohawk: about 65
Dworkin: 68 (1211/31)
Cabranes: 69 (12/22/1940)
Which would be a nice quid pro quo for what the Dems have done to Republican presidents’ nominees BUT I think that the public believe that these sort of nominations are the perogative of the president so a filibuster is the wrong political choice. I say that we pull the Dem move stressing ADVICE and consent of the Senate then vote 41-0 for someone if they’re not terribly left-wing.
You refuse to hold it at all. That was Jesse Helms’ approach.
'Course it only works if you hold the chairmanship. The GOP strategy could only be to footdrag until after the election, and hope against hope they get it back.
“Justice Echohawk” would be the coolest name on a federal Court since “Justice Learned Hand”.
How about Charles A. Beard? I’d bet he’s still got some fight left in 'im.
Indeed. And now The Washington Post is reporting that he’s made it official.
One more large fight for the President, is my prediction.
And it’s official: he’s retiring. EDIT: Err, yeah. It’ll be a fight but Obama will get this done. This won’t shift the balance of the court. If Kennedy retired or died, you’d see total fury.
My prediction: Prominent Republicans in power will oppose whoever he choses.
My other prediction: Tomorrow is Saturday.
I’ll make another really safe prediction and say this time the White House will do a better job of vetting their own fucking nominee. The ‘wise Latina’ comment was unimportant but they were obviously caught off guard when it was discovered. They’re going to do everything they can to make sure that doesn’t happen again.
As long as the Pubbies will have a conniption fit no matter who Obama nominates, why not really piss 'em off and nominate Hillary?
Enlighten me. Is Stevens generally considered a conservative, liberal or middle-of-the-birder?
She’s already got a job that pisses them off. Nominate Bill.
Clinton has never previously been a member of the judiciary. She’s not really any more qualified than Harriet Miers, and you remember how that went.