Elena Kagan nominated to replace Stevens

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

A good article on how an election-year fight over the nomination and the strategy in picking that nomination can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/politics/26court.html

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

The suggestions that the "other side" offer usually aren't worth much. That being said, Joe Scarborough on MSNBC just suggested that a political person might have an easier confirmation process.

I just don't see that as being the case & would be surprised if Obama went that way.

The two names that Scarborough threw out there were Deval Patrick and Jennifer Granholm.

I'd be shocked if he picked either of them. The only political type that I think has a chance is Janet Napolitano. Obama clearly likes and is impressed by her.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Granholm's name has been mentioned over the last two years or so as a possibility. She is supposedly, better at law than she is at governing a state, but I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about her qualifications.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

If you've got an hour-plus on your hands and want to watch Scalia and Breyer discuss/debate Constitutional Law on a C-SPAN program click here:
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/27/AC/A/31071/AC+Supreme+Court+Justices+Antonin+Scalia+Stephen+Breyer.aspx

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

I'd have more of an issue with this if it were liberal replacing conservative, but he's essentially going to "switch out" a liberal vote for another (well, in most cases... we've all seen how some judges can go against the political background of the party that nominated them... lol)

I had no problem with Sotomayor. We'll see what Obama does here.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Is Obama under pressure to nominate a woman? His first nominee was a woman who replaced a man (which got us back to two women after O'Connor was replaced by a man).

But most of the people I've heard mentioned as possible replacements for Stevens are woman. Is that due to internal Dem politics or are they considered the best possible nominees?

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

I think in part it's a carryover from the Sotomayor nomination.
For that nomination they were specifically looking for a woman. Most of the nominees mentioned so far are the women who were the "finalists" for that nomination.

So I don't think it's a case of they're looking specifically for a woman for this nomination. It's simply a case of the only names in the media's eyes are the top names from the last nomination.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

It burns me up a little bit because he's a Republican (Ford) nominee. He's served 35 years and now because he's retiring during Obama's term, Ford's blunder will haunt us for another 30 years.

Souter (Bush 41) did the same thing.

But then, that's our (Republican's) fault/problem.

O'Connor wasn't a reliable conservative vote, but she was at least "loyal" enough to resign during a Republican Presidency.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

If you look at the numbers, woman are earning more undergrad degrees and post grad degrees in fields like Law and Medicine. At some point, you've got to expect that reality to show up in places like the Supreme Court.

But, it's probably too soon for it to be a reflection of O'Connor & Ginsburg's careers.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

I'll place my chips on Elena Kagan as the nominee this time.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

I heard an NPR discussion yesterday on the possible successors. What frustrated me, as a moderate Democrat, was that there was a presumption on the part of whatever expert they were interviewing that Obama didn't dare nominate this or that person with a "liberal" background. The thesis was that he would have to kowtow to the right for some reason.
I just hate this whole line of thinking. I don't remember W having to exercise similar caution from the other side when he was nominating justices. I say, in either case, Republican or Democratic president, if the other party wants to filibuster a qualified candidate to the Supreme Court, let 'em, and make sure the nation understands exactly what is happening.
There is no point in winning an election if you have to spend the next four years placating the people who lost.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Alan Dershowitz on MSNBC calling for a nominee with "real life experience". Called on Obama to cast a "wide net' in his search.

Cited Louis Brandeis as an example of a top trial lawyer with no judicial experience who was a great Supreme Court Justice. He said, "the last thing we need is another Appellate Judge."

He also wondered if religion would play a role. Stevens is currently the only Protestant on the Court.