UPDATE, 1:40p: Vanity Fair is suggesting Obama pick Anita Hill to replace Souter. Funny, I think.
[HT: Matt Lewis]
_______________
These have been gathered from Chattah Box, the Chicago Tribune, Fox News, the New York Times. The list includes men, although most think the new pick will be a woman. I've filled in bios where I've learned them:
Ruben Castillo, US District Court judge for the Northern District of IL...
Pam Karlan, pro-abortion Stanford law professor, former clerk to SC Chief Justice Harry Blackmun (author of Roe v. Wade decision) Harold Koh, pro-abortion Asian-American Dean of Yale Law School, nominee for legal advisor to State Dept. Margaret McKeown, liberal judge at the infamous 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco Deval Patrick, MA governor Sonia Sotomayor, Hispanic liberal judge at 2nd US Court of Appeals, NY Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School Cass Sunstein, Harvard law professor Kim Wardlaw, liberal judge at the infamous 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco Diane Pamela Wood, pro-abort liberal 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Chicago, appointed by Clinton
And now this, from Fox News:
At first glance, with Democrats a hair away from a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, one would expect President Obama to have no trouble hand-picking a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.But in an ironic twist, PA Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party this week could give Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee the upper hand in rejecting a nominee they find unacceptable.
That's because the Judiciary Committee, where Specter was the ranking minority member, requires the consent of at least one Republican to end debate and move a nominee to the full Senate for a vote."I think, in narrow terms, it could present a procedural problem at the committee level, unless the Democrats are going to change the rules of the committee midstream," William Jacobson, a professor of law at Cornell University, told FOXNews.com.
"Most people presume in a controversial nomination that Arlen Specter would have been the one most likely to vote with Democrats, since he prides himself on being independent of Republicans. But now that he moves over to the Democratic side, the president and Democrats lost their most likely minority vote."...
Jacobson believes the most likely Republican to help Democrats on the committee is SC Sen. Lindsey Graham who was one of the Gang of 14, a group of 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans who averted a showdown on President Bush's judicial nominees in 2005.
"If Obama were to nominate someone clearly viewed as a political appointee ... then I think Lindsey Graham would be subject to pressure," Jacobson said. "On the other hand, if he were to nominate someone Republicans don't like but is qualified, like (Solicitor General) Elena Kagan, would Lindsey Graham feel compelled to go along with the gang of 14? I think that is something that remains to be seen."...
Democrats aren't powerless to stop a potential filibuster at the committee level. They could change the rules to allow the committee to vote on the nominee and send a recommendation to the full Senate without Republican consent.
But Jacobson believes that's unlikely to happen.
"The senators, as political as they can be, they have tended to put value on the rules of conduct," he said. "To change the rules to get a particular nominee confirmed would set a dangerous precedent. I doubt Democrats would want to do that."
He added that changing the rules might tick off the unpredictable Specter who has developed a strong respect for tradition.
"If Democrats were to change the rule to force through a nominee, he might vote with Republicans," Jacobson said.
Verrrry interesting.
Now, recall what sort of justice Obama is looking for, and it's not an astute interpreter of the Constitution. Roll the tape from 3:55 and hear this, which has absolutely nothing to do with law but with feelings, which is frightening:
And there the question is what's in the person's heart and their gut not just what's in their head. And what I want are people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through....
Comments:
I think it's almost certain he will pick a woman. And there is no chance the person will be pro life. The only question is how radical of an abortion supporter they will be.
Posted by: Joanne at May 1, 2009 2:05 PMAnita Hill is not an option. she wouldn't show up and accept examination in front of people she lied to. Only the most extreme of psychopaths are confortible infront of people where they have been exposed.
This will be a pure political appointment. he will select someone to send a message. No regard for their skill working with the laws.
"And what I want are people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through...."
You know he means a pro-abort. We pro-lifers are lacking empathy, feeling, and are not ordinary enough. Oh, brother.
All we ask for is a correct reading of the Constitution. I suppose he'd say the same of the writers of the Constitution as well? And how can they re-write the rules in the middle of the game?
Posted by: Janet at May 1, 2009 2:24 PM"But in an ironic twist, PA Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party this week could give Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee the upper hand in rejecting a nominee they find unacceptable."
Could it be possible that this was Specter's plan?
Posted by: Janet at May 1, 2009 2:27 PMWouldn't it be the irony of all ironies if Anita Hill were nominated, and Justice Thomas testified against her?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 4:13 PMGranholm would be out... she's not a natural born american citizen. She was born in Canada. I don't think non-americans are allowed to serve, as much as I would love to see her on the bench.
Posted by: yo La Tengo at May 1, 2009 5:26 PMYou don't have to be a natural born citizen to sit on the SCOTUS. Don't think you even have to be a citizen, but I haven't looked.
The entire Hill/Thomas circus was a farce.
On the judiciary committee we had Ted Kennedy, who at the time was trying to get his nephew out of a rape charge stemming from a night of Tomcatting with Uncle Ted, who one would think a tad old to be out romping like a college boy.
The Senate Judiciary Committee? It looked more like the Harper Valley PTA.
Posted by: Mary at May 1, 2009 7:26 PMWhat does Kennedy's nephew have to do with Justice Pervert's confirmation hearing?
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at May 2, 2009 12:45 AMYLT,
I just consider it highly ironic, even laughable, that the likes of Kennedy, who also left a woman to drown, was passing judgement on Thomas. How funny that around the time of the hearing, the good senator, who was suffering delusions of being a college boy, had been out romping, i.e. trying to pick up women, with his nephew when the younger Kennedy picked up a woman who later charged him with rape.
MY, my, did the senator really regard women as playthings?
Of course Uncle Teddy, who obviously holds women in only the highest esteem, was at that time sitting on a panel judging the character and fitness of Thomas. He was also using the Kennedy fortune and influence to get the his nephew off the hook and destroy the character of the alleged rape victim. Face it, she never had a prayer. BTW, there was nary a word of outrage from feminists.
Now, get real YLT. You know as well as I that Thomas was persecuted for his politics, not his lousy pick up lines. He was a black man who dared stray off the liberal plantation. While you folks on the left piously pounded your chests about about "Justice Pervert" you have time and again turned a blind eye to the sexual harassment, abuse, and even assault perpetrated by your left wing heroes.
Did you ever hear feminists express a word of outrage about Ted Kennedy? How about Bill Clinton? Space, time and good taste won't allow me to elaborate much more on those two.
Mary, if all you've got is events from 30 or more years ago, why have you not protested outside the whitehouse during the Bush Admin for Laura Bush to be tried for murder? She did kill someone with her car when she was a teenager...the increasing shortness of the straws you cling to for an argument never cease to amaze me. Yet, at the same time the utter depravity of your logic gives me hope that Abortion will be safe and legal for years to come.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at May 2, 2009 2:33 PMYLT,
LOL. Please, don't talk to me about shortness of straws. You asked a question and I answered it.
Also, the Hill/Thomas hearings were in the early 90's, not 30 or more years ago.
According to the police report Laura Bush drove into an intersection and hit another car, killing the passenger. No charges were filed.
Very tragic yes. Something out of the ordinary, no. Tell me YLT, have you ever been involved in a car accident or near misses that could have been fatal? You've never swerved into the wrong lane, exceeded the speed limit, raced through a yellow light??
This accident occured in 1963. You were saying something about events that occured 30+ years ago??
Posted by: Mary at May 2, 2009 2:57 PM
Posted by: Mary at May 2, 2009 2:57 PM
Let's see Laura Bush killed someone in 1963. George Bush got a whole bunch of people killed in his presidency 2001 - 2009, and the justice that you support is a pervert at the very least. Yep, those are some of the shortest straws and dimmest bulbs I have seen in a long time, but if you want to keep using them...be my guest.
And for the record I have an impeccable driving record. Try again.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at May 2, 2009 7:53 PMYLT,
The justice I support is a "pervert". Exactly how is he a "pervert" YLT? The word of Anita Hill? Come on, this was no helpless cleaning woman desperate to keep her job. Hill was an attorney. She never took any kind of legal action against him. She continued her association with him after leaving his employ. She presented no evidence to support her allegations.
According to the testimony of the president of Oral Roberts University, after having dinner at his home Hill offered to drive Thomas to the airport. Why would she even have dinner with a man who so horribly abused her, much less offer him a ride anywhere?
I want to keep using Laura Bush? You brought the subject up! In case you've never noticed people die in accidents all the time. Does the word "Chappaquidick" ring a bell?
Despite your "impeccable" driving record you could briefly swerve into a wrong lane tomorrow and kill someone. These tragedies happen all the time. And honestly YLT, I don't believe you or anyone, however "impeccable" the driving record, has never had a near miss or two.
I just have to laugh anytime anyone thinks that they have a remote chance against Mary!!!
Posted by: Eileen #2 at May 2, 2009 9:18 PMMary,
If you speak extemporaneously as well as you write, you might have another career in talk radio/television, politics.
Eileen #2 is correct, you are formidable proponent.
yor bro ken
ps: And from my perspective you are both 'right' and 'correct' most of the time.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2009 7:26 AMEileen#2 and Ken
Thank you both so much. I'm very flattered.
Honestly though I'm someone inclined to be shy. I think writing is my safest and best way to express myself. I can be easily intimidated and devastated by what someone says to me, however nicely its said.
If I'm really mad at you I'll just ignore you completely rather than have any verbal exchange.
Let's just say I always prefer to go unnoticed so I wouldn't do well with politics, TV, or as a speaker.
Mary,
I concur with Eileen#2 and Ken. Your writing is superb - a fine example to us all.
Janet,
Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
Posted by: Mary at May 3, 2009 11:10 AMMary, I agree with Eileen#2, Ken, and Janet. :-)
Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at May 3, 2009 11:11 AMHello Doyle,
Thank you very much as well.
Posted by: Mary at May 3, 2009 11:51 AMYeah, Mary likes to expose sanctimonious claptrap for what it is :) And she does it very well, and a lot more politely than I seem to be able to.
Posted by: Fed Up at May 3, 2009 6:46 PMMary, your posts are always enjoyable to read and so logical!:}
Posted by: heather at May 3, 2009 11:30 PM
Thank you also Fed Up and Heather. A great way to start my morning.
Re: Mary, May 2
First - "Chappaquiddick" is the correct spelling. Second, the subject of your rage is dated by 40 years. You might want to get a shrink to deal with those issues. No wonder you come off as so bitter...
YLT,
Thank you for the correction but I have seen both spellings on the internet, which I checked before posting.
I have no rage toward the man. If anything I pity him as a man who has thrown so much away.
LOL, I'll be sure to check on that shrink :):)
Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2009 8:05 AMMary and rage just don't fit in the same sentence together!:]
Posted by: heather at May 5, 2009 4:12 PM