An academic or a former politician for Stevens replacement on the Supreme Court?

[CTyankee]

Interesting discussion on Morning Joe today. They didn't discuss names but rather whether Obama should pick an academic that is "safe" (to avert Republicans attacks) or a seasoned politician, e.g. a former Senator, who is skilled at working the political side of issues.

My view is that regardless of WHO Obama picks, the rethugs will attack viciously.

No mention was given in today's discussion about whether or not another woman should be appointed. I think Obama should appoint another woman...having only 2 women on the Court is lame and we can do better. We also need another woman who can uphold a woman's right to choose...

[hobbit709]

1. How about someone with real experience in the law

[CTyankee]

3. Uh, well , yeah...but by that do you mean that only say, a judge, would qualify?

The real issue is not whether someone has "real experience in the law" because you can argue that some academics do. I think what they were driving at was that, if I discern them correctly, academics are more the "safe" choice (Robert Bork, anyone?) or a politicians who has had to actually take a side in a political debate and vote one way or the other. Hope I haven't misconstrued your position here...

[hobbit709]

7. How about someone with actual practicing law experience

Writing position papers for a RW think tanks shouldn't count as actual law experience.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

28. a lawyer, not a judge, and someone rather young, but smart

mid 40s to mid 50s is about right.

[harun]

30. Everyone meets that requirement.

[saltpoint]

2. A woman as Obama's next SCOTUS appointee would be terrific.

Agree also that it would help balance the mostly-boys club and may even make life more difficult for the right-wing kook faction on the Court now -- Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, etc.

Right-wing interests in the country hate Obama so your prediction that they'll attack him no matter which person is nominated sounds exactly right. They're kind of trained to attack Democratic administrations, whether Carter's or Clintons's or Obama's.

[CTyankee]

4. Right on, Saltpoint. It's a given. If it's an academic, they'll attack her on her writings.

If a politician, they'll attack on her votes.

Having said that, it would be wisest if they avoided anyone with even the whiff of potential, if not actual, scandal. You know, like someone who posed nude for a popular magazine...oh, wait...

[saltpoint]

6. LOL.

I expect the Republicans in the Senate to raise a stink over just about anything the Obama administration does, but it's apparently escaped their notice that he is making a lot of sure-footed, politically sound moves, and each time they hold up his appointments or attack him for no real reason than spite and pettiness, they strengthen HIS argument and weaken their own.

[CTyankee]

10. I hope you are right but as we both can attest, in our lifetime there have

been some pretty bruising battles over Supreme Court nominees...godawful, in fact. I shudder at the thought of another Anita Hill type of sideshow...(the repubs, not Anita Hill)...

[saltpoint]

12. Thomas is such a worthless turkey... you are exactly right that we

would be better off avoiding another scene like that. I didn't like Clarence Thomas from the git-go and like him even less now.

Where have you gone, Anita Hill?

The Republican leadership will oppose Obama's next SCOTUS nominee on reflex. But Obama has the votes and I think this particular battle will be relatively brief. Limbaugh and Hannity will be barking about it as usual but on the Senate floor, I think Obama will have the votes.

[CTyankee]

15. Maybe he better do it fast, while he still HAS those votes...nt

[saltpoint]

16. Well, I'm optimistic. I often find myself drifting into Future Fantasy Land,

where on one summer's afternoon -- say, for example, THIS summer -- Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are taking a stroll their the woods. The Justices happen to come upon a small pool, carefully landscaped and glistening in the sun's warm rays.

"Why, let's have us a bit of a swim," says Justice Roberts.

"We concur, " say the other two Justices.

Off go their dark robes and kerSPLASH go the trio into the glistening pond.

But it is not a freshwater pond into which they dive but a tidal saltwater pool in which Dr. No, the Bond fiend, breeds sharks.

Dr. No, BECAUSE he is a Bond fiend, does not breed small sharks. Oh no. Dr. No breeds very large sharks. Very large sharks indeed. And he keeps them minimally fed so they are in effect very, very hungry all of the time.

They are very large sharks and they are very hungry sharks. Suddenly three bucknaked Supreme Court Justices have kersplashed into their domain and ladies and gentlemen, it is officially yum-yum time for the sharks.

[CTyankee]

18. I used to have dark thoughts about a metrobus and Justice Thomas...

but I decided that was bad karma...

[AngryAmish]

5. An academic or politician would be eaten alive

[CTyankee]

8. Who would you suggest, to avoid such a prospect?

A sitting or former judge would be attacked for her written opinions, siding one way or another on some issue.

Do you think it should be an administrator of a federal or a state agency? That may or may not be dicey...

So I'd like your suggestion of the type of nominee you think wouldn't get eaten alive...I'm not arguing, really, just would like to hear what you think...thanks.

[AngryAmish]

17. A sitting appellate justice

One who has been through all the en banc battles.

[CTyankee]

19. Does Sonya Sottomayor fit that description?

The New Haven firefighters case was pretty huge, as I recall...it hit all the race buttons...

[AngryAmish]

23. Most certainly does

Being a judge is a learned skilled like all others. There is a culture. There are ways to dissent and make your point in such a way that you can persuade. Some years ago I was drinking beer with an Illinois Supreme court justice. There was one guy on the court at that time (a repub) was often wrote these terrible, caustic opinions. The justice told me he had zero credibility with his colleagues. He did not persuade and was considered a joke. The Repub retired and no one really wanted him around.

[CTyankee]

24. You make a good point and a very strong argument for a seasoned jurist.

Wisdom is to be hoped for and your example is an excellent one...

[Skink]

9. Stevens has been around for awhile let's let him pick.

[CTyankee]

11. Does he get to "pick"? Just wondering...I don't know.

I never heard of the retiring justice "picking" his/her replacement...but maybe I'm just naive...

[vaberella]

22. I don't think so. Only the President is allowed to pick.

Further more, people are thinking that Stevens might pick someone like him....and maybe not.

[CTyankee]

26. My guess is that Obama will listen to his input...esp. if an appellate judge

whose cases have gone before the Supreme Court is the nominee.

[YOY]

13. No. Someone who is familiar with real law and has no prior "obligations".

n/t

[saltpoint]

14. In the best case President Obama will nominate someone who is

able to handle GOP Senator's partisan questioning during the confirmation hearings, someone who is very capable of that, and someone who maybe even looks forward to a little dust-up with Jeff Sessions.

A female nominee who is both gracious and formidable and can look right into Sessions's impudent face with a kind of "bring it on you little pissant" glare.

[CTyankee]

20. LOL, I could just envisage Hillary Clinton with your post!

But I can see Elizabeth Warren being nice but KILLING with Sessions and the other neanderthals (apologies to Neanderthals). She IS a Harvard law professor...and the spectacle of repub heads exploding is SO much fun!

[vaberella]

21. I thought only academic's were allowed?! Plus I think O will choose a good one. n/t

[CTyankee]

25. He'll do fine! I trust him on this. He won't pull any funny stuff...

but I think non-academics have been nominated and have served admirably. Wasn't Earl Warren the former governor of California? His court was certainly progressive...

[blue_onyx]

27. I doubt Obama would nominate a politician

It's an election year and he'll go with a safe nominee.

[CTyankee]

29. I think the idea of a "safe nominee" is just illusory. Maybe at one time in our history

that was the case but this is a whole new ballgame. The pukes are out for blood. Their mantra is "Obama must FAIL."

That said, I think Obama will avoid unnecessary flashpoints...nobody with funny stuff in their personal backgrounds, for instance. But I can't think of any nominee worth his/her salt that would not be attacked on SOMETHING, and viciously so.

[harun]

31. I think he will go safe with any and all nominee's. Media and Republicans

are too much against him for him to go "out of the box".

I think he will go with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_B._Rawlinson

[karynnj]

32. Both look very good, but Kagan's resumee is exceptional

[CTyankee]

33. Wow, you are right! I think this is HER turn...

I love the thought of 3 women on the SC. Should be 5!!!