[nathanbedford]

In turn, all of this suggests that Obama--to the extent he's interested in making a good government choice--ought to be asking himself, "what area of expertise does the current court lack that I think it needs"?

There is the rub, to believe that Obama is interested in making a "good government choice" is like believing that Obama really wants to find "common ground" to reduce abortion. Because of cases like Roe V. Wade in which the court has become aggressively interventionist as it has become increasingly detached from the Constitution, the court has become decreasingly related to "good government" to the degree that that phrase has any relationship whatsoever to the meaning of the Constitution.

Obama will do what every Democrat president since John F. Kennedy has done, he will appoint an ideologue to the court to advance a leftist agenda. Republicans in the Senate will look for "common ground" and the Constitution will be further debauched and "good government" will mean whatever five berobed tyrants says it means.

[muawiyah]

Last thing in the world Obama would do is make a "good government" type of choice. My heavens, the man is a Chicago politician ~ that's halfway between being a Commie and a mass murderer with a hand into the rackets.

However, when it comes to "a field in which the other members of the court lack expertise....." that could be many so many things Obama and his handlers'd never get through the list.

That's why they'll replace Souter with some political putz with a strong Chicago connection.

[Clintonfatigued]

“Obama will do what every Democrat president since John F. Kennedy has done, he will appoint an ideologue to the court to advance a leftist agenda.”

John Kennedy appointed Byron White, who wasn’t a leftist ideologue. I don’t know what Kennedy’s intent was, but White’s rulings were often with Rehnquest.