Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 4, 2009 10:01:26 GMT -5
If nothing else, I am hoping for some entertainment provided by the near legendary Obama vetting team. (Motto of the Obama vetting team: "What does vetting mean?")  |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 4, 2009 10:01:52 GMT -5
My wager: it will be a woman. My second wager: it will also be a minority or Hispanic. My third wager: it will also be a flaming liberal. My fourth wager: it will also be an Oprah type of person. You had me until the 4th point. Do you mean a person that is rich, has weight problems, and is black? Up until the 4th I was right with you - Justice Sottomayor. What I meant was someone who places extreme emphasis on "I feel your pain". |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 13, 2009 19:05:22 GMT -5
So, some possible names have been leaked. I count on the hordes of lawyers on this board to give me some kind of analysis.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 13, 2009 20:31:34 GMT -5
If this really is the short list, this will be almost as exciting as when the "Wizards" was chosen over such strong candidates as "Sea Dogs" or "Dragons" for the name of the Washington basketball team.
Sotomayor in a landslide. No way he doesn't pick a judge. His first high court pick isn't going to be some Harriet Miers-like ham and egger.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 13, 2009 21:00:35 GMT -5
Isn't the utter dominance of judges a relatively recent phenomenom? Haven't we usually had people who have worked outside the legal profession with quite some success?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 13, 2009 21:24:14 GMT -5
Isn't the utter dominance of judges a relatively recent phenomenom? Haven't we usually had people who have worked outside the legal profession with quite some success? We have, but not lately as you say. And there's been this push to think "outside the box" on this pick but I think that's smoke. The aforementioned Harriet Miers is an accomplished attorney too. That and $2 gets you a Texas lottery scratch-off ticket. The depth of knowledge and experience you need for this job is substantial and you don't get it kickin' around as the governor of Michigan. The "craziest" he goes is a professor, but I think he sticks with a judge. Obama is cautious and a constitutional law professor in his own right. He knows how different this role is than a policy person or a partisan attorney-turned-poltician. A bunch of people will squawk for someone with "varied experience" but honestly, why? I've heard arguments that the court would "perform better" but strangely at best the performance "measures" backing those assumptions are weak hypotheticals on individual cases and just general musings on the need for diversity at worst. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 13, 2009 23:02:22 GMT -5
I think Obama's nomination will be interesting. It seems that so many of these SCOTUS nominations have been surprising in the past 10 or so years. Many expected Luttig but got Roberts instead. Many expected a qualified intellectual and got Miers instead. Many expected a conservative and got Souter instead.
So much is made of replacing Sandra Day O'Connor's pragmatism and political awareness with this pick. This is where you get the Jennifer Granholms of the short list.
All told, I think Obama will play this one safe and go with a sitting judge, perhaps with some interesting professional background. Wood is perhaps being overlooked on this front in the face of Sotomayor's assumed inevitability. I also think that Obama's interviews will be weighed heavily.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on May 13, 2009 23:53:16 GMT -5
I also tend to think that Sotomayer is the likely pick. I also think that pretty much all the picks Obama gets to make in his presidency should be women.
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on May 17, 2009 18:13:29 GMT -5
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 17, 2009 19:00:27 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/17/obama.supreme.court/index.html"Regardless of whom he picks, liberal and conservative activists are already bracing for an epic battle over the future of the high court." Uhhhhh, why? Isn't Clarence Thomas the only close vote amongst the current justices. And he had a scandal, questions of qualifications, a Senate of the opposing party to the nominating president, and was an extremely conservative justice replacing an extremely liberal member of the court. Whomever Obama picks will be 0 for 4 on those factors. Why will this be epic again?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 17, 2009 19:37:39 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/17/obama.supreme.court/index.html"Regardless of whom he picks, liberal and conservative activists are already bracing for an epic battle over the future of the high court." Uhhhhh, why? Isn't Clarence Thomas the only close vote amongst the current justices. And he had a scandal, questions of qualifications, a Senate of the opposing party to the nominating president, and was an extremely conservative justice replacing an extremely liberal member of the court. Whomever Obama picks will be 0 for 4 on those factors. Why will this be epic again? Because Cable News has a 24 maw and Internet blogs are too numerous to number and the Republicans need SOMETHING, ANYTHING to try to rally the troops. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 17, 2009 19:39:57 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/17/obama.supreme.court/index.html"Regardless of whom he picks, liberal and conservative activists are already bracing for an epic battle over the future of the high court." Uhhhhh, why? Isn't Clarence Thomas the only close vote amongst the current justices. And he had a scandal, questions of qualifications, a Senate of the opposing party to the nominating president, and was an extremely conservative justice replacing an extremely liberal member of the court. Whomever Obama picks will be 0 for 4 on those factors. Why will this be epic again? Because Cable News has a 24 maw and Internet blogs are too numerous to number and the Republicans need SOMETHING, ANYTHING to try to rally the troops. That's what I thought SirSaxa. Thanks for confirming in 37 minutes which is about 36 longer than it will take the Senate. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on May 18, 2009 14:20:47 GMT -5
Personally, if I were Obama, I'd shock everyone and name someone like Posner. Sure, he's an old, white, male with a strong independent streak and no strong ties to either party ... but he is perhaps an unrivaled intellect, widely respected by those across political parties whose most influential writings and holdings regard the role of law in the economy. In an epic, economic crisis like we face now, and the subsequent and inevitable urge to overregulate and overreact in response, I think it would be the most prudent and responsible thing for Obama put the #1 issue at the foreground of the nomination of a justice and not wedge issues. If not Posner, chose another judge with similar credentials. But, please, at a time like this where the most important jurisprudence of the next twenty to thirty years will be on economic matters and the upcoming regulation of the financial markets, can we please have a judge who has cut their teeth working through these issues?
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 20, 2009 13:33:39 GMT -5
voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/20/a_gathering_of_justices.html?wprss=44The Post reports that Judge Wood has been interviewed. It is unclear who else is getting an interview. The Solicitor General is in town and is believed to be under consideration. Governor Granholm may have been interviewed yesterday. Judge Arguello of Colorado.is a new name to surface recently, perhaps because she has confirmed her candidacy to the press. On Edit: CNN is citing an anonymous source who indicated that Granholm met privately with Obama.
|
|
