THE SUPREMES
Since David Souter announced his resignation from the Supreme Court, speculation has been rampant about who President Obama might nominate as his replacement.
For those who might wish to discuss the potential candidates a bit more intelligently (and, really, who wouldn't?), the following are among contenders mentioned so far:
Merrick Garland (federal judge, US Court of Appeals)
Thomas Goldstein (head of the Supreme Court practice for Akin Gump and co-ounder of Scotusblog)
Elena Kagan (Solicitor General of the US)
Harold Koh (Dean of Yale Law School)
Robert A. Levy (chair of the Cato Institute)
Charles Ogletree (Harvard Law School professor and Obama advisor)
Deval Patrick (Governor of Massachusetts)
Lucas A. Powe Jr. (University of Texas law professor who doesn't even make it to wikipedia)
Leah Ward Sears (Chief Justice of the Georgia State Supreme Court)
Sonia Sotomayor (federal judge, US Court of Appeals)
Kathleen Sullivan (Stanford University law professor)
Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago law professor and Obama advisor)
Seth Waxman (former Solicitor General under President Clinton)
Diane Wood (federal judge, US Court of Appeals)
David Yalof (associate professor of political science at the University of Connecticut)
Kenji Yoshino (New York University law professor)
Actually, I'd just assembled this list for a new thread at America's Debate, so I thought I might as well post the list here, as well.
The best idea so far, though has come from Michael Sean Winters at America magazine: put Al Gore on the Supreme Court.
The choice would be electrifying. ...
Ultimately, the case for a Gore appointment is simple. Conservative jurists justify their rulings by appealing to abstract principles such as "strict construction" or "original intent of the Founders" this last despite the fact that even a modicum of historical familiarity with the Founding shows that the Founders had many and varied intentions for the Constitution they crafted. Liberal jurists care about the real world effects of a law. No one has been the object of both conservative hypocrisy (whither states rights?) and a very nasty real world application of the law in the way Al Gore was in Bush v. Gore.
I suspect President Obama will have other nominations by which he can bring other perspectives to the High Court's proceedings. Mr. Gore might not even desire the appointment. But, in one stroke, Obama could avoid any intra-party grumblings and show to all the world that injustice can be rectified.
Oh, hell yeah! Can you imagine Scalia and Thomas sharing a bench with Al Gore? "Electrifying" wouldn't begin to describe it...
For those who might wish to discuss the potential candidates a bit more intelligently (and, really, who wouldn't?), the following are among contenders mentioned so far:
Merrick Garland (federal judge, US Court of Appeals)
Thomas Goldstein (head of the Supreme Court practice for Akin Gump and co-ounder of Scotusblog)
Elena Kagan (Solicitor General of the US)
Harold Koh (Dean of Yale Law School)
Robert A. Levy (chair of the Cato Institute)
Charles Ogletree (Harvard Law School professor and Obama advisor)
Deval Patrick (Governor of Massachusetts)
Lucas A. Powe Jr. (University of Texas law professor who doesn't even make it to wikipedia)
Leah Ward Sears (Chief Justice of the Georgia State Supreme Court)
Sonia Sotomayor (federal judge, US Court of Appeals)
Kathleen Sullivan (Stanford University law professor)
Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago law professor and Obama advisor)
Seth Waxman (former Solicitor General under President Clinton)
Diane Wood (federal judge, US Court of Appeals)
David Yalof (associate professor of political science at the University of Connecticut)
Kenji Yoshino (New York University law professor)
Actually, I'd just assembled this list for a new thread at America's Debate, so I thought I might as well post the list here, as well.
The best idea so far, though has come from Michael Sean Winters at America magazine: put Al Gore on the Supreme Court.
The choice would be electrifying. ...
Ultimately, the case for a Gore appointment is simple. Conservative jurists justify their rulings by appealing to abstract principles such as "strict construction" or "original intent of the Founders" this last despite the fact that even a modicum of historical familiarity with the Founding shows that the Founders had many and varied intentions for the Constitution they crafted. Liberal jurists care about the real world effects of a law. No one has been the object of both conservative hypocrisy (whither states rights?) and a very nasty real world application of the law in the way Al Gore was in Bush v. Gore.
I suspect President Obama will have other nominations by which he can bring other perspectives to the High Court's proceedings. Mr. Gore might not even desire the appointment. But, in one stroke, Obama could avoid any intra-party grumblings and show to all the world that injustice can be rectified.
Oh, hell yeah! Can you imagine Scalia and Thomas sharing a bench with Al Gore? "Electrifying" wouldn't begin to describe it...