U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

Yeah, totally would read. In law school he was the guy whose opinions had me writing otm in my margin notes the most.

I like Ginsberg fine as a justice, but Stevens was the best liberal justice we've had in the relatively short time I've followed the court at all. I reflexively hate (1) hero worship (2) ironic hero worship (3) SCOTUS fanboyism (4) white dorks using hip-hop references in a simultaneously smug and self-deprecating way, and (5) brown-nosey mainstream democrat types trying to make it seem really cool and radical to just be a moderately progressive person. So the Notorious RBG stuff rubs me the wrong way.

Well said. She's great and all but stuff like this just furthers the overall cluelessness abt USSC matters among the general public.

I should probably take some time to get to know Kagan's and Sotomayor's jurisprudence a little better, but as I've noted I find Supreme Court nerdery to be a drag, although it's probably in my professional interest to act otherwise.

did you read Ginsburg's eulogy for Scalia? one of his assets was preferring her over Mario Cuomo for the seat.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273166-obama-may-announce-scotus-nominee-wednesday-report

ffs, not the 63-year old, please

Obama should just nominate a baby -- long career ahead, limited judicial record to pick apart.

Noted elsewhere - everywhere? here? - but one upside to Trump winning the nomination is it pretty much sweeps the legs out from intransigent GOP SC opposition.

Obama should nominate 12 different potential Supreme Court justices, then make them run around in a room talking at once. The GOP won't know who to oppose!

xp: why, Trump couldn't be convinced to nominate a conservative Justice? Or you mean because he can't win.

Trump would probably pull a Blagojevich and auction off the SC seat to the highest bidder.

Also, because of the gloom and doom about what a Trump nom would do to the GOP down ticket.

In seriousness, I think Trump would probably agree to nominate a "true conservative" in exchange for the right endorsements/backing, because I truly do not think he gives a fuck as long as he wins.

Oh he'd totally nominate a Miguel Estrada.

or Erik Estrada

reuters tweets that it's Srinivasan

Cnn is saying Garland.

FOX is saying Bork.

AP, NYT, WaPo all say Garland. Too old!

My people are telling me Clarence Clemons:
http://i.imgur.com/I3FLJYm.png

Called it.

The U.S. Supreme Court

Anyway, what's the story with Garland?

I mean, I am going to vigorously oppose him, but please lay out a case.

another member of the tribe on the court

Hmm:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/

Judge Garland's record demonstrates that he is essentially the model, neutral judge. He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements.

Of the three principal candidates "“ the other two being Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Judge Diane Wood "“ Judge Garland would also likely have the most immediate influence on the Court. He is well known to the Justices and is likely the most respected by them collectively, particularly the more conservative Justices. The fact that Judge Garland is not only extremely intelligent and respectful but exceptionally careful and quite centrist would mean that his views would have particular salience with, among others, Justices Kennedy and Alito.

To the extent that ideology plays a role in the nomination "“ and it obviously plays a material role "“ the other side of the coin of the factors that would in part drive Judge Garland's likely influence is the fact that, on questions on which the three principal candidates would disagree, he would generally be the least liberal.

from 2010 obv

if republicans have a brain cell between the bunch of them they'll take garland as a gift and confirm him immediately

and then we all can abstain from the presidential election happily

The Oklahoma City bombing case in 1995 helped shape Judge Garland’s professional life. He coordinated the Justice Department’s response, starting the case against the bombers and eventually supervising their prosecution.

Judge Garland insisted on being sent to the scene even as bodies were being pulled out of the wreckage, said Jamie S. Gorelick, then the deputy attorney general.

“At the time, he said to me the equivalent of ‘Send me in, coach,’” Ms. Gorelick said. “He worked around the clock, and he was flawless.”

oh yay another judge from Harvard

It's possible he set Garland up as a moderate fall guy knowing HRC may nominate someone else

I'm going to have Judge Judy Garland in my head for the next three months.

It's not exactly a pick that will excite the more liberal wing of the party. Oddest thing is how old dude is.

also: he's not Scalia

That scotusblog post takes pains to note that while he would be the least liberal of those listed (back then), that by no means means he's conservative. Just not progressive. But at least he does not seem to be blindly agenda driven, which puts him at odds with at least Alito and Thomas.

his track record on detainees seeking redress seems less than ideal to me but honestly if Obama thinks he'll be good on the SC I'm inclined to trust the guy who knows more about the law than I do

I guess Hatch is a fan, and pushed for him here.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered his own thoughts on who President Obama should nominate to fill the seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last week. “(Obama) could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Hatch told the conservative news site Newsmax, before adding that “he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

Who is playing the longer game of thrones con?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760727/who-is-merrick-garland/

To be clear, Garland’s record does not suggest that he would join the Court’s right flank if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He would likely vote much more often than not with the Supreme Court’s liberals, while occasionally casting a heterodox vote. Nevertheless, as Goldstein wrote in 2010 when Garland was under consideration to replace the retiring liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, “to the extent that the President’s goal is to select a nominee who will articulate a broad progressive vision for the law, Judge Garland would be a very unlikely candidate to take up that role.”

I think this largely all depends on whether senate can be forced to consider and vote on a candidate. If they are then Garland offers GOP both a fig leaf and perhaps a less bad outcome than they might expect post election. If they won't consider anyone I'm not sure it matters too much who Obama's nominee is although someone like Garland will probably get a little more beltway support (but it's not like any of proposed candidates were likely to meet much resistance there).

With Republican nominee likely to be Trump and there being a good chance that the GOP might crumble in response their "let's wait and see til post election" intransigence loses its luster if they think they'll lose in landslide.

ffs, not the 63-year old, please

― k3vin k., Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:20 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

for real, this is kind of a bummer

i mean i don't really know much about srinivasan either but still

I don't know, for a position that's for life, I'm not sure I necessarily have a problem with someone older. Especially since an open seat on the court is so galvanizing.

BTW, which justices nominated by a Democratic president "ended up being conservative" on the Court?

Obviously best to have the best (which obv in my opinion is most progressive) justice for the longest time possible, but it's not like human longevity is not really predictable and there are other calculus at play for Obama. Assuming they thought Garland would be more difficult to oppose than Kelly/Srinivasan for GOP.

BTW, which justices nominated by a Democratic president "ended up being conservative" on the Court?

― Thomas H. Handy (dandydonweiner)

Frankfurter

iirc supreme court justices almost always move further to the left over their career xxp

he believed in a kind of judicial restraint that went out with OWH, Jr.