Some men are being speculated about.
I think there have been political concerns about and within the Court for decades. At least for most of the last century. This is nothing new. ETA: Or rather, what BrainGlutton said.
I guess it is just a sense that being a lifetime appointment the justices can “break” with political ideology and vote their conscience/law and not concern themselves with politics. Souter was deemed a moderate conservative appointment then leaned largely liberal. IIRC there have been some other justices in the past who “broke” with the political ideology they were chosen for in the past as well, much to the dismay of the party that thought they had a lock there.
I guess for me it is just a sense or wish for how I thought (or wished) it should be (a branch of government largely separate from politics) getting smashed against the actual reality of it all.
What can I say…I’m a bit of an idealist. 
Frankly, I don’t know enough about many of them to judge them all. But I can tell you right off that I wouldn’t feel bad about Sunstein or Kagan. I’m bothered a bit by Sotomayor’s legal reasoning in the area of race. I don’t think Caroline Kennedy is qualified at all, and her Second Amendment opinions bother me. As for Hillary Clinton, I think that would be a non-starter.
Remember that the rules of the Judiciary Committee require that at least one Republican has to vote for the nominee for the nomination to make it to the floor - so Obama, while he is free to nominate someone considerably in tune with his philosophy, cannot freeze Republicans out of the process entirely.
This has nothing to do with a filibuster - it is just the rules of the Senate and the committee, and they cannot be changed now.
I respect the fact that you’re willing to commit yourself and go on record.
And for what it’s worth, I agree that Clinton is a non-starter. Obama nominating her would essentially be him saying “fuck you” to most Republicans. Other candidates are more qualified so the only thing she’d offer would be more controversy.
I also agree that Kennedy isn’t qualified for the Supreme Court and I’m on record as saying I thought she was qualified to replace Clinton in the Senate.
Given the attention this will engender, I sure hope he picks someone who has damned strong credentials and no lightning rods for opposition - at least for this first nom. The other route - as with Souter - is to go with some complete dark horse who has no record to attack.
And PLEASE, have an accountant check whether or not they paid their taxes! 
Please, not Amy Klobuchar! She’s great, I like her, but we’re already down one senator. And if she’s tapped, then TimPaw gets to nominate her replacement, which would absolutely be a Republican. (Who likely would have more seniority than Franken, seeing as he won’t be seated for years, probably.) I doubt Obama would go that way.
It must also be said that as much as I like Amy, I have no knowledge of her legal chops or arguments besides her being a DA.
Personally, while his nom is filibuster-proof, I think Obama should go with someone he’s worked with before, and who is sure to make conservatives’ heads explode.
Lawrence Lessig, anyone?
Or Laurence Tribe.
I say make it someone who is not only not a judge, not only not a lawyer, but who emphatically and publicly does not even approve of the United States Constitution: Daniel Lazare. 
It’s hard to predict who Obama will pick because he will almost certainly get another vacancy in this term and possibly a third one as well. He would certainly want a Hispanic on the court by election year but he doesn’t have to do it this pick. Still the CW appears to be that he will pick a woman in which case Sottomayor would seem to be a smart choice. By all accounts she appears to be competent enough and she allows two demographic boxes to be ticked off. That will give Obama the freedom to make a personal pick the next time; perhaps someone like Sunstein who is solidly liberal but has lots of fresh ideas.
pleaseletitbeScaliapleaseletitbeScaliapleaseletitbeScalia . . .
I’m still not sure if Obama’s own racial background makes him more able to indulge in tokenism than a white President, or less.
Looking at the age of the current members I think Ginsburg is a near certainty this term given her health problems. Stevens who is 89 is likely though of course this assumes that he is in fact a mortal. Breyer is 70 so he is a possibility. He may wait till 2011 when Obama’s re-election chances will be clearer. If re-election looks likely he may decide to stay on. Scalia is 73 but of course he will try to hang on. However if Obama is re-elected, will he be able to stick around till 2016?
The really interesting case of course is Kennedy who is 72. What kind of replacement does he want for himself? If he leaves under Obama, there could be a liberal SCOTUS majority for the next couple of decades.
If Obama stays for a second term, it's quite possible that he could make 5 or even 6 picks which is a staggering thought.
If only Roberts were older! 
4 conservatives, 4 liberals, 1 moderate=dominated by diehard conservatives???
Hey, I know that Obama is a liberal, so he is going to appoint someone who is pro-Roe, and will vote with Stevens and Breyer all of the time. Just don’t make the nominee too big of a Dem whore and I will support him/her.
So, why when a Republican President appoints a potential Justice, there is shock, shock I tells ya, that, gasp, they want to overturn Roe v. Wade!!!?
Because a Justice who wants to remove rights is far more worrisome than one who wants to preserve them.
Obama has chosen a lot of elected officials for his administration - in his cabinet, I count two then-current governors, two senators and a representative, and that’s not counting Biden and for that matter Rahm Emmanuel. I’ve seen CNN suggest Klobuchar, Granholm, Deval Patrick and a couple of other active governors and senators. The Supreme Court is a very different animal from the cabinet, but I would think he’ll stop keep pulling people out of office like that.
Sure, although I’m not sure whether separation of powers would require him to resign upon confirmation or upon nomination. (Someone who’s better schooled in constitutional law than I can weigh in on that one.)
It’d probably be difficult to get confirmation, though. When people worried about Blagojevich and Palin appointing themselves to Senate seats, it was because the confirmation processes aren’t the same.
Justice Kennedy is a Conservative, just as Justice O’Connor was. They are only “moderate” by comparison to the even MORE conservative justices to their “right.” And the Court does not have four liberals. It has two liberals and two moderates who generally vote with the liberal members because they cannot stand going so far to the “right” as Justices Scalia and Thomas want to go (to say nothing of Alito and Roberts).