The Supreme Court Short List:

Jan Crawford Greenburg reports that the White House has a short list of candidates to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. According to Greenburg, the White House has asked six individuals to submit information for vetting, "which is being run outside the White House," but only three -- Diane Wood, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor -- are identified by name. Most interesting is Greenburg's coverage of the internal debate over the nomination, over whether to seek political advantage or identify the nominee with greatest potential impact on the Court, whether to play it safe or whether to save a safer candidate for a subsequent nomination later in the term. Interesting stuff.

tvk:
One thing is that Greenburg appears to assume it is certain that Obama will have another nomination during his first term. Does she know something we don't, or is she just going with the Justice Stevens is really old meme?
5.7.2009 8:59pm
Soronel Haetir (mail):
Or the RBG won't recover theme.
5.7.2009 9:09pm
Oren:
If he appoints a moderate to replace Souter, does that put him in a better or worse position to appoint a more liberal voice to replace RBG?
5.7.2009 9:12pm
Observer:
Does it seem that Barry and his crew are taking an awfully long time to get this nomination announced? It was a badly kept secret that Souter was to retire, and now it will be a full week tomorrow. Why aren't they ready to go with the nominee by now?

Are they perhaps waiting for the Senate to be out so you don't have an incident similar to Teddy Kennedy's rush to the Senate floor to condemn Judge Bork with his nonsense about segregated lunch counters? Will Sen. Sessions come to the floor to attack the nominee?
5.7.2009 9:47pm
Mike S.:
I like the idea of a short list. I think no woman over 5'1" or man over 5'4" should be considered :) There are far too many tall people in government.
5.7.2009 9:56pm
NickM (mail) (www):
Mike S. wins the thread.

Nick
5.7.2009 11:23pm
Cornellian (mail):
If it comes down to Kagan or Sotomayor, please pick Kagan.
5.7.2009 11:33pm
Raul M. Nunez Sheriff (mail):
If Obama appoints Sotomayor he scores double by seating both a woman and a minority on the bench, this will earn him plaudits from women and hispanics. Ms Sotomayor is a strong candidate, has an impecable record and is liberal enough too.
5.7.2009 11:55pm
jbarntt:
I like the idea of a short list. I think no woman over 5'1" or man over 5'4" should be considered :) There are far too many tall people in government.

Works. James Madison is qualified.
5.8.2009 12:01am
http://volokh.com/?exclude=davidb :

James Madison is qualified.

Madison was a badass, even though that dude was SHORT. He was like a jockey for crying out loud. Weighed 100 pounds. But he punched above his weight when it came to limited government!!
5.8.2009 12:08am
Middle Name Ralph:

One thing is that Greenburg appears to assume it is certain that Obama will have another nomination during his first term. Does she know something we don't, or is she just going with the Justice Stevens is really old meme?


I wouldn't be shocked if some of the liberal leaning justices have been waiting for a while to retire. historically, there's a desire not to swamp the administration with multiple nominees so the justices may talk among themselves as to the order. Ginsburg and/or Stevens may already be planning to retire before the next presidential election.
5.8.2009 12:16am
Melvin Winter (mail):
If this Onion-style parody of Obama's criteria for judicial candidates is even remotely accurate, I would hope his list would be short (scroll down to second entry):

www.optoons.blogspot.com
5.8.2009 12:19am
Leo Marvin (mail):
Observer:

Does it seem that Barry [...]

Thanks for the early heads up on what to expect from your comment.
5.8.2009 1:05am
Prosecutorial Indiscretion:
If it comes down to Kagan or Sotomayor, please pick Kagan.

If it comes down to Kagan or anybody, please pick Kagan.
5.8.2009 8:30am
ruuffles (mail) (www):

If he appoints a moderate to replace Souter, does that put him in a better or worse position to appoint a more liberal voice to replace RBG?

According to Greenburg's own book, worse. She points out that Reagan nominated Scalia with a R senate and Bork with a D senate. Had they been reversed, Scalia would still have sailed through a D senate (unanimous in R senate) and Bork would have had an easier time with a R senate.

Considering there are 59 or 60 Ds in the Senate now, the margin is unlikely to get significantly larger, same goes for Obama's approval rating. When Bork was nominated , Reagan's approval was tanking.
5.8.2009 9:09am
ruuffles (mail) (www):
OK she repeats it in the article

Ronald Reagan made that mistake with Antonin Scalia. In 1986, Reagan had a Republican majority when he nominated Scalia, the first Italian-American justice, who was warmly embraced by Democrats (Robert Byrd invited him to West Virginia for an appearance) and confirmed unanimously.

But in his next nomination a year later, Democrats had control of the Senate---and blocked Robert Bork. It would have been much more difficult for Democrats to block the first-ever Italian-American justice. Had Reagan nominated Bork first, it's widely believed by the Left and Right, he would have gotten both Bork and Scalia confirmed.
5.8.2009 9:15am
JB:
"Madison was a badass, even though that dude was SHORT. He was like a jockey for crying out loud. Weighed 100 pounds. But he punched above his weight when it came to limited government!!"

James Madison was puny
James Madison was small
He built a Constitution
Ten Constellations tall

We wake the better mornings
And we sleep the better nights
For Jimmy's Constitution
And Jimmy's Bill Of Rights
--Willard Espy
5.8.2009 9:51am
Oren:

According to Greenburg's own book, worse.

Just by way of counterpoint, there is value in saying that you are appointing someone whose views are close to the Justice that you are replacing. If he appoints a far-liberal now, R's will complain that he's changing the balance by appointing a far-left to replace a moderate left. In contrast, if he appoints a far lefty to replace RBG, no one will be able to make that claim -- at worst, it leaves the court exactly where it was.
5.8.2009 1:50pm
CJColucci:
Does it seem that Barry and his crew are taking an awfully long time to get this nomination announced?

No.
5.8.2009 4:37pm
anonfun:
Rumor has it that Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is on the vetted list.
5.10.2009 3:11pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.