Posted on 02/19/2012 4:17:48 PM PST by RummyChick
Who will be the next justice to retire, and who will be nominated to replace that person?
SCOTUSblog does some prognosticating and says California Attorney General Kamala Harris could be the next nominee tapped for the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There's one big problem, though: Harris may not want the job.
“In the lists of names, only one truly stands out as checking every box: Kamala Harris,” Goldstein writes. Like the president, she is biracial, and she will be 50 years old in 2015. She is liberal, but she has a law enforcement background.
The only problem is that Harris could pass up a Supreme Court nomination because she would be early in her second term as attorney general at that point.
Another “serious possibility” is Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who knows the president from their service together in the Illinois legislature. Goldstein names seven other contenders, including former Michigan Attorney General Jennifer Granholm and two women with pending nominations to federal appeals courts: former New York solicitor general Caitlin Halligan and U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Nguyen.
Hat tip to the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.
(Excerpt) Read more at abajournal.com ...
Kamala Harris is a two-fer: black and Asian at the same time. Since he has a large pool of extreme leftist lawyers to choose from, considerations like that will probably play a major role in his decision.
If Obama looks likely to win (and the MSM seems to have decided he is a virtual shoo-in), then Ginsburg has no reason to retire now. Thurgood Marshall made the mistake of assuming G. H. W. Bush would be unbeatable in 1992 so he retired--if he had stayed on the Court until his death Clinton would have picked his replacement. Instead we have Clarence Thomas.
A radical leftist politician??
No way. His nick was Stinky? LOL
BTW I thought Bayport was in Long Island, not MA.
It'll be a marxist
KSM
Santorum voted to confirm Sotomayor to the 2nd Circuit knowing it would fast track her to the Supreme Court where she now sits. (Thanks, Rick!)
Obama will pick some invincible "minority" and the GOP will rubber stamp no matter how disturbing the choice. The establishment are gutless.
The vile Kamala Harris is precisely the sort he might pick. She's the future of this nation's Democrat politics.
Unless you look at who Romney nominated to the courts in Massachusetts and who his top campaign man John Sununu recommended Bush, Sr. nominate, David Souter. What's the difference between the next David Souter and Obama's next affirmative action pick to the courts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Early_life_and_education
Harris created a special Hate Crimes Unit as San Francisco District Attorney. She focused on hate crimes against LGBT children and teens in schools. She convened a national conference to confront the “gay-transgender panic defense”, which has been used to justify violent hate crimes.[40] Harris supports same-sex marriage in California and opposed both Proposition 22 and Proposition 8.[41]
In her campaign for California Attorney General, she has received the endorsements of numerous groups, including the abortion rights EMILY’s List...
Harris is opposed to the death penalty but has said that she would review each case individually.[27] Her position was tested in April 2004, when SFPD Officer Isaac Espinoza was murdered in the Bayview district. Harris announced that she would not seek the death penalty for the man accused of his killing. The decision evoked protests from the San Francisco Police Officers Association, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and others.
Harris’s position against the death penalty was tested again in the case of Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant and alleged MS-13 gang member who was accused of murdering Tony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew.[21] On September 10, 2009, Harris announced she would seek life in prison without the possibility of parole rather than the death penalty in the Ramos case.[30]
Harris has expressed the belief that life without possibility of parole is a better, and more cost-effective, punishment.[31]
Pluck her.
liberal and has a background in law enforcement.. HAAAA!
a background.. lolol
For whose side.. ?
In the Bay Area, She let gang members kill cops and innocent citizens and turns her head .. no death penalty prosecution, nothing..
Just what California does
NOT need.. or the SCotUS.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.