The next Supreme Court justice

The Economist ^ | April 15, 2010

[Clintonfatigued]

Justice Stevens announced his intention to quit on April 9th. President Barack Obama is expected to nominate a replacement within weeks. Leaks suggest that he has a shortlist of about ten candidates, including a couple of big political names: Janet Napolitano, the homeland-security secretary, and Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan. Most pundits, however, expect him to nominate a professional jurist. The most-mentioned names include Diane Wood and Merrick Garland, both appeals-court judges, and Elena Kagan, the solicitor-general. His nominee must be confirmed by the Senate, which should be easy, since his party has a hefty majority. In theory, Republicans could mount a filibuster, but blocking a judge is not like blocking a law. If they had successfully filibustered health reform, it would have died. But if they scuttle Mr Obama’s nominee, he will simply name another.

So the outcome is not really in doubt. Yet for both sides, the battle is of the utmost importance. For Mr Obama, it is a chance to shape American society long after he leaves office. Justice Stevens is nearly 90; his successor could be 40 years younger. For Republicans, it is a chance to make the Democrats look like bong-puffing, jihadi-hugging radicals before the mid-term elections in November. During the confirmation hearings, they will expose and exaggerate anything that the nominee has ever said that might offend a significant number of voters.

[Clintonfatigued]

Obama expended a huge amount of political capital on the Health Care bill and many DemocRATS are getting skittish. Hopefully, this will lead Obama to avoid controversy and name someone who’s less repulsive than he normally would.

[SandRat]

..make the Democrats look like bong-puffing, jihadi-hugging radicals They're not?????

[Pollster1]

During the confirmation hearings, they will expose and exaggerate anything that the nominee has ever said that might offend a significant number of voters.

Considering what Obama considers mainstream, quoting the nominee in a manner that offends real Americans should be VERY easy. Let's just hope the RINOs follow through.

[digger48]

What is it about the rancid sludge at the bottom of a trash barrel that Liberals find so appealing?

[WHBates]

I don't believe that for a minute, the Democrats are acting like suicide bombers.

[Clintonfatigued]

Here’s another court fight, though the nominee has yet to be chosen.

[dr_who]

Hope Republicans can knock off one or two nominees.

[Don Corleone]

In theory, Republicans could mount a filibuster, but blocking a judge is not like blocking a law. If they had successfully filibustered health reform, it would have died. But if they scuttle Mr Obama’s nominee, he will simply name another.

Wash...rinse...repeat!

[Truth29]

"Obama expended a huge amount of political capital on the Health Care bill and many DemocRATS are getting skittish. Hopefully, this will lead Obama to avoid controversy and name someone who?s less repulsive than he normally would."

He doubled down to get Obamacare. I suspect that he will do the same with his nominee. He intends to push everything possible through before the November elections. He intends, in effect, a bloodless coup to turn the US into a Marxist, crippling tax, heavily regulated, dependent state.

[Impy]

I would guess a Breyeresque justice would be the best he would appoint.

[lentulusgracchus]

Hopefully, this will lead Obama to avoid controversy and name someone who’s less repulsive than he normally would.

No, I think he'll do the Mexican-voter-amnesty and prison-convict-voter thing before the election (to help stuff the ballot boxes), and wait until afterward for his SCOTUS fight, when he'll have a busy session for the lame-duck Democrats.