THE SUPREMES

[wertz]

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 (

Comments

[zulfiqar_rgh]

Based on the fact that this Court is in dire need of some diversity (and there are political constituents to reward/placate) I'm guessing that someone like Sotomayer seems most likely at this point. Female, Hispanic, a poor background, and something of a pragmatic background. Rumor has it that she may not be the brilliant jurist that Obama wants, but he doesn't have to "nail it" right away, I suppose. After all, he's likely to get at least two more appointments. Justice Stevens is 89. And Justice Ginsburg has a pretty nasty form of cancer. She's also nearing "ancient" descriptions. Justice Kennedy is 72, and Justice Scalia is 73. Neither are in bad health, but neither are inhabiting the bodies of much younger men, either. With rationalizations in parentheses, my wish list for the three picks would look something like this

[wertz]

I thought we were just about to lose our first gay justice. You're not going to tell me Souter is straight, are you?

Sotomayor may not be the worst choice, but I suspect the recent Ricci v. DeStefano case will be used as a bludgeon by the GOP to kill her nomination. I doubt Sullivan or Yoshino have much of a chance, either - sadly.

Obama may still try Sotomayor, but he might also try Deval Patrick (unless he thought it would look too much like identity politics). But I do think Al Gore would be a brilliant choice - and not solely for the poetic justice.

[zulfiqar_rgh]

Indeed. It's a good point. When talking about Justice Souter, I do need to remember to say things like "openly gay" versus just "gay," don't I? Or, perhaps that's just insensitive? Maybe I should stick to the official line of "active jogger

[wertz]

Yeah, this one is hard to second-guess. I suspect that, for this nominee, he'll go with someone he thinks is "safe"and won't create too many waves in the advise and consent process. I'm just not sure who that is.

[zulfiqar_rgh]

Perhaps. What's odd about all of this is that he's taking any time at all. Pat Leahy said in an interview today that both he and The White House had known for some time that Souter was retiring. So why the wait now? Either they really have been busy, not unreasonable considering all that's been going on, or they're letting Sotomayer float out there to see what all comes to the surface. Or perhaps Barry is dithering. Presidents have been known to agonize over these things. Clinton and Cuomo, Reagan and Bork/What'sHisFace/Kennedy, Bush & Eisenhower and their collective buyers remorse, etc. all good examples of difficult nomination issues.

I do think an academic is more likely than not, however.

[wertz]

Yeah, apparently Obama had a shortlist together by mid-December 2008. Of course, it could be tough to decide who from that list to put forward...

[zulfiqar_rgh]

I think so. As with the Cabinet, the Dems have quite a lot of talent at the moment. Well, at least it seems like they do. Perhaps it's just how well they stack up against the Republicans that makes it seem so much like too many A-listers for not enough positions...

[wertz]

Yeah, it might be relative...

[zulfiqar_rgh]

Well, I think we now know why they've waited. It's so not to kill the news cycle on the Health Care news they're announcing today. Krugman is happy; Ezra Klein is nervous. The numbers are big. These factors probably mean a pretty big news cycle. I bet they don't want to step on it. I bet we get the pick next Monday. Chuck Todd says he has the leaked "short list" on his "First Read" blog today. The names? These 6

[wertz]

Hmmn... Pity about Leah Ward Sears, too.