SCOTUS picks

Who could possibly be on the short-list for a nomination to the Supreme Court under a Democrat’s administration?:

Here are just a few different kinds of short-list possibilities from spending a little time thinking dynamically about different types of potential Justices (and not (yet) obsessing over possible judicial attitudes):

  • Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears of Georgia (age 52 and the only African-American female Chief Justice in the United States)
  • Chief Justice Chief Justice Laura Denvir Stith of Missouri (age 54)
  • Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts (age 52)
  • John Trasviña, President and GC of MALDEF (age 50)
  • Lisa Brown, Executive Director of the American Constitution Society (age 48)
  • Ivan Fong, Chief Legal Officer for Cardinal Health (age 46)

H/T: Instapundit


  1. SouthFultonGuy says:

    Supreme Court nominations are precisely why anti-McCain GOPer’s can’t stay at home saying we’ll have another chance in four years.

    The “Supreme” implications of not uniting around the nominee for a win this fall are for decades.

  2. joe says:


    Obama, Clinton, McCain, or even Huckabee. Which demonstrates conservative principals?

    None of the above.

    I will be voting, and I will be voting for none of the above.

    Scare tactics about how bad somebody might be (when I know that the others are just as bad) will not work.

  3. Chris says:

    Scare tactics about how bad somebody might be (when I know that the others are just as bad) will not work.

    Incorrect. See: Presidential Election, 2004

  4. Doug Deal says:

    Chris and Joe,

    So you would have been happy if two liberal justices replaced O’Connor and Reinquist, instead of Roberts and Alito.

    No offense, but you guys are foolish.

  5. Goldwater Conservative says:

    It is interesting to think about it, and not because he was a recent president…rather it is because he was resigned from the Supreme Court bar over various controversies. Bill Clinton would almost certainly be confirmed. Considering his executive experience at multiple levels of government, his views on Federalism and the separation of powers…in addition to his extraordinary understanding of jurisprudence. I can go on and on, but he would be a nominee to be reckoned with. If Clinton were elected, this probably would not happen.

    If John Edwards becomes the next Attorney General, he may very well be a SCOTUS nomination considering how close he would be to the administration and considering his experience in Congress. He, as well as Clinton, has an impressive resume.

    Whether or not the next Justice has experience as a judge or not is irrelevant. I think that the next nominee, if a Democrat is elected president, will be an individual who has served as an elected official in the federal government (preferably in both federal and state capacities)or a scholar.

    McCain may even do something similar. His “coat-tails” (if he has any) are more likely going to assist conservative Democrats get elected as well as a few progressive gopers. We will see.

    Ideology is not that important in these decisions. What is good for the well being of our country is what is important. Not what a nominees position on Roe v. Wade or any of that crap. We need a new federalism though. Under the Rehnquist court, things became too ideological. Clarence Thomas will, hopefully, be the first to leave. That man has no principles. He only has political positions. It has been so long since that man read the Constitution it is not even funny.

  6. drjay says:

    since thomes is one of the youngest justices –i doubt he goes anywhere for another 20 years–there are several in their 70’s and 1 in his 80’s…

  7. Doug Deal says:



    Goldwater, your assessment about Thomas is about as incorrect as any I have read. Look at the decisions in which Thomas and Scalia are on differing sides (doesn’t happen very often). In just about every case Scalia’s vote is the one based on politics, and Thomas is the one making the case for limited government, federalism, etc.

    Read this for an analysis of their distinctions.

    Unless you think a strong backing of Federalism is being political, you are way off base and should give Thomas an apology and adopt a handle that better reflects your ideology (like NixonConservative).

  8. profg says:

    Doug Deal,

    “Unless you think a strong backing of Federalism is being political, you are way off base and should … adopt a handle that better reflects your ideology (like NixonConservative).”

    That is fantastic. I wish I had thought of it in my expose of GC’s false GC-ism.

    From now on, he is officially dubbed “NixonConservative”. I love it.

  9. joe says:

    Doug and Chris,

    Who Obama, Clinton, McCain, or Huckabee MIGHT appoint IF there is a vacancy is not enough to make me vote for somebody with whom I am not comfortable. It will take a lot more to convince me to vote for any of the above.

  10. Doug Deal says:


    No wonder the Democrats are back in power in Washington. I am no fan of McCain, and would have supported almost any Republican over him, but I would have to be a fool to think that there will be no difference between Clinton/Obama or McCain.

    Would you starve yourself if you had a parasite because the parasite would be fed as well if you ate? Working to hasten the destruction of the country because you did not get exactly what you want is childish. Perhaps when your candidate wins a nomination, the part of the party you don’t represent can boycot your guy. That will show everyone!!!

    I held back the vomit when I voted for Bush twice, but I did so because the alternatives were so much worse. But, no, go ahead, enjoy yourself when the two horrible aging liberal justices (and maybe a conservative) on the Supreme court get to be replaced by very young, even more extremely liberal justices. Then, they can visit their liberal extremism on our great-grandchildren, instead of just us.

Comments are closed.