Come to think of it nominating HRC would likely be a Harriet Miers redux.
A major complaint about her was her lack of experience. No judicial experience, slim (non-existent?) written opinions, distinctly political.
I am not up on HRC’s biography to say for sure but I think she is in the same boat on that.
Al Franken for Supreme Court!
I have no opinion on whether Reno is qualified or not (I just do not know).
I will say I despise the SCOTUS becoming so political. In my Candyland vision the SCOTUS is separate and above political concerns. Sadly that is no longer the case so I am cool with piling liberals back in to thwart the Scalia’s in there.
Ok…I am being inconsistent here…not wanting a political court then calling for an ideological liberal. Not sure how to reconcile that…
My head wants to explode now.
Imagine it’s 2016. Could he appoint himself?
How about waiting until another decided to retire, and putting in Bill AND Hillary ? That’ll do it.
Anyone who thought O’Connor was “moderate” is not paying attention to the huge shift to the “right” that the Court made in the 80s. When she was first appointed, she was anything but moderate. She only became so because even MORE conservative justices kept getting appointed, moving the center of the Court’s philosophy from “left” of her to very near her.
I think that President Obama will be trying to do what President Clinton did not try: return to the Court a truly liberal approach. Of course, to do that, he has to replace people who retire with justices of a more liberal bent. That will require one of the conservative justices retiring, or dying.
I was surprised about this one; I thought Stevens would definitely be the first to leave considering his age. Apparently Souter never liked DC (I can relate) and wants to enjoy the mountaineering around New Hampshire. Good for him for knowing what he wants.
Souter would seem to reflect a long-gone age where somebody with a relatively short judicial record could be appointed to the Court. From the New York Times:
And given the fact that Souter ended up being part of the Court’s left wing, that kind of appointment seems unlikely to ever happen again.
Name and demographics games are already starting, and while it makes sense he would choose a woman, you never know. Since she’s part of two prominent minorities, it might be Sotomayor’s turn to step up to the plate. It’s not going to be Clinton. She’s been his Secretary of State for all of three months, there are a ton of international issues happening, and he’s not going to want to start all over again with a new SoS. She doesn’t have the legal experience anyway, having not practiced in decades and never been a judge.
MY pick would be Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Somamayor. She is 54 years old and has had her position for ten years. The pick would be a very wise political selection as it would further cement President Obama’s hold on both Hispanics and women. The Republicans would hate it and you could put them in their place by ignoring their loud objections and shoving it up the old rear corridor showing them how impotent they are in the Senate.
Somehow I don’t think “ran a detention camp at Gitmo” is the qualification that Obama will be looking for.
I just hope Obama won’t pick someone whose entire career has been spent in government or academia.
In these parts, Georgia chief justice Leah Sears is getting some ink as a possible pick.
Only reason anyone would be reading that here first is if they have been refusing to read anything on the topic for the past several months.
The lovely Ms. Wood ripped me a new asshole during argument last month resulting in a completely bullshit opinion that is really going to hurt my client agency for some time to come. Hell, I’ve got no problem losing the damn case (tho I think I should have prevailed) - but there is no reason we should’ve lost for the reasons she gave and in a published opinion.
She would do my client far less damage as a Supreme than in the 7th. I would be very happy to see her go.
As a lawyer, I dislike this idea that nominees have to have sterling legal credentials. When someone does, like Roberts, it’s certainly not a bad thing. But, there are no set qualifications for the Court. Frankly, I think the Court could benefit from an outsider’s prospective. John Marshall, one of the most influential Justices of all time, though trained as a lawyer, was certainly not a legal heavy-weight at the time of his promotion.
That mini-rant aside, my own choice would be Leah Ward Sears.
Out of curiosity how is the Chief Justice position decided? Can Obama theoretically name someone else or is it locked in stone till the position is vacant?
The Chief Justice must announce intent to leave the post and a new one nominated. The new one could be a current Associative Justice. That would then create a vacancy in the Associative Justice spot. See the nomination of Rehnquist after he had already been on the Court as a Justice .
Ha ha. I had a friend who for his first-ever panel at the Seventh had Posner, Easterbrook, and DPW. It was a pro bono 8th Amendment case for a prisoner (regarding dental care) – you know, the sort of thing that warms the cockles of Posner’s and Easterbrook’s hearts.
It’s Associate Justice. Associative means (a+b) + c = a + (b+c).
Some speculations from scotusblog.
Damn - that must have been the panel from hell! Could probably make a few bucks marketing tapes of that session! 
Mine should have been a snoozer - the other 2 judges had written the 2 decisions most in my favor. But frigging Wood wouldn’t let me get a word in edgewise. As soon as I finished saing “How ya doin!” she went off on a rant that ate up 1/2 my allotted time.
I forwarded the tape to al of my golfing buddies who qreatly enjoy yanking my chain over my futile obsequiousness.
Let me ask again my question that went unanswered in February:
To the conservatives on the board: Of the possible nominees who have been named, what are your opinions of them? The names mentioned are Hillary Clinton, Jennifer Granholm, Elena Kagan, Pam Karlan, Caroline Kennedy, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Margaret McKeown, Janet Napolitano, Richard Paez, Janet Reno, Leah Ward Sears, Sonia Sotomayor, Kathleen Sullivan, Cass Sunstein, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Diane Wood.
I’ll even put this up as a challenge: I’m asking conservatives to commit themselves now to their views. Because here’s my prediction: As in February, conservatives will want to lay low and not offer any opinions before Obama offers up a name. That way they can keep their options open and declare whoever he names as the worst possible choice. Which I’ll regard as just meaningless partisan hyperbole at that point.
(As a sidenote, I seem to be the only person who’s considering the possibility Obama will nominate a man. I’m potentially going to either look totally out of touch or amazingly presient.)
The SCOTUS has always been political. Justice Marshall, a Federalist holdover during Democratic-Republican administrations, shaped the nascent constitutional structure along Federalist lines. The Dredd Scott decision came out the way it did because antebellum Southern pols made sure the South had solid representation on the Court. The Gilded Age SCOTUS struck down many business-reg measures as unconstitutional. The SCOTUS blocked key New Deal legislation until FDR tried the court-packing plan – which is generally counted as a defeat for him, but it seems to have scared the judges around to a less obstructionist way of thinking. And from the '50s through the '70s, the SCOTUS was where liberals looked for things they couldn’t win at the ballot box.