I don't see the SC moving appreciably in any direction

[cali]

until either one of the 5 conservative bloc justices steps down or unless a repub gets elected president in 2012 and has the opportunity to replace Breyer or Ginsberg. Kagan will not, I suspect, vote very differently from how Stevens votes. Kennedy will remain the occasional swing vote. Not unless Obama gets a chance to replace Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Roberts, will the Court or the current dynamics be substantively changed.

[Wapsie B]

1. I just hope if Breyer or Ginsburg were thinking of stepping down due to illness or whatever

they do it within the next year or so. Then hope that one of the righties leaves. Even without nominating a hardcore lefty Obama could really change things up on the court if Scalia or Thomas head off to pasture.

[zipplewrath]

2. 95% true

The problem being of course that the court has been shifting hard right for years. The GOP has been willing to appoint more and more conservative justices. Absurdly so in the case of Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas. But the Democrats insist on appointing these middle of the road types. The result is the average is shifting to the right.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Putting someone extreme left wouldn't get the 5th vote to go with the liberals......

and in the long run, that's what you would want
if the point is to end up with favorable rulings
for our side.

[zipplewrath]

5. But we're not

leaning right isn't the way to "Get favorable rulings" for "our side". That's the way to let the court drift right.

[FrenchieCat]

8. We are not talking about "leaning right".......because Kagan doesn't lean right......

that just propaganda from those who fail to understand what the goal is; winning rulings.

[zipplewrath]

9. I thought the goal was advancing progressive ideals

So it's just about winning, not what is won?

[FrenchieCat]

3. I watched Charlie Rose last night on the Kagan nomination.......

and one of the two guests was talking about how the court doesn't work the way many think; the issue is not to simply choose someone way to the left in hopes that they somehow become a counterbalance to those on the right. He said rather the court operates as a unit, so if anything, you want folks closer to the center who by sheer reasoning can make the reasonable argument, not the ideological argument to bring those on the Right closer to the center.....and then that's when the Kennedy vote, which is the center Right, could be shifted on certain issues to just plain center....because that's the only way to turn a 5 to 4 into a 4 to 5.

He said that we might think of the SC as 9 different individuals, but in reality, it's one unit, and the trick is getting that unit to lean back center.

It was fascinating.....

[librechik]

10. assuming the judges are moved by argument, rather than their membership in

The Federalist Society, Skull and Bones, The Catholic Church, The Bush Administration or the Conservative Movement. I think at least three are unabashed shills for the US Chamber of Commerce and Cheney's Law, so it won't matter one whit how persuasive the arguments of the opposition are. We already know how they'll rule. Oh, and I don't think the 3 or 4 on the other side are shills for anything except the law.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. Agree. The only thing this nomination does is buy us time

[OHdem10]

7. Roberts and Allito have been groomed through the years by the Right

to keep the SC Right not Center but Right. Can anyone
imagine Scalia going center????

[mmonk]

11. I see the court as something we are unfortunately stuck with

barring a grave sickness from a conservative member of the court and some sort of a miraculous victory by a liberal to the presidency. Under bush, we went from one of the most conservative courts in history to an extreme or radical one in a short time. The gang of 14 detroyed many of our founding principles and established legal tenets and settled law for a generation or maybe more.