The U.S. Supreme Court

he is funny but his tendency to call people out always really bothered me, so smug, especially given how he is never, ever, right.

i'm all for a good zing but it's the supreme court, zings are frowned upon imo

He and Gore Vidal have one thing in common: an alarmist self-pity, manifesting itself in jeremiads about the fall of the Republic.

two of my favorite dudes there

Jeffrey Rosen says some more things.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/05/some_lines_just_cant_be_crossed.php

Rosen's right about one thing--Sotomayor's entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary is pretty harsh

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/05/11/a_scotus_short_list.html

i've been kinda going with the assumption (CW?) that Obama picks whoever is easiest to confirm - he wants to save his capital for agenda items, has shown little interest in engaging on social issues, and it's unclear how many votes he has. i'm not sure that's right, though. the court is obv extra-ordinary business and something he's clearly interested in, plus it may just be downhill from here, capital- (and votes-?) wise. not that there's a huge difference between the options. i perceive the state of play as the following:

Wood: perceived as the most liberal, and perhaps the sharpest; she seems to be the pick that makes it a fight (her age might temper opposition, though not by much, and it would make the pick less likely); he'll have to set the terms of the debate first, and well
Sotomayor: perceived as liberal, but the double-demographic appeal and her original appointment by Poppy may well make her the easiest confirmation (and the talk about her being difficult, etc., may also make her an easier confirmation - but also a less likely pick?)
Kagan: perceived as less liberal than Wood (and Sotomayor?) and therefore perhaps also an easier confirmation; her (Roberts-esque?) personality may cause the GOP concern behind the scenes (and make her a more likely pick?), but they'll need some other textual excuse to oppose her (her lack of bench experience and her position in the Obama admin, presumably)
Napolitano: her lower- (lowest?) wattage may raise her chances - less of a personality than Kagan, and may be perceived as less liberal by virtue of being top cop; politically connected to Obama in more high-profile fashion than Kagan, but AG is not a political position (and Obama may want someone with more political skills there?)

he could, of course, pick a Wood first, and if things don't work out, revert to another choice. though that wouldn't seem to be very Obama-esque procedure.

so basically

Wood = Rehnquist
Sotomayor = Scalia (the easier confirmation of the two)
Kagan = Roberts
Napolitano = Alito

?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/souters-summits/

WOD wasn't exactly the best justice, but he did know his mountains

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/05/20/wood_goes_to_washington.html

I have hiked in the William O. Douglas Wilderness Area in Washington State. It really is a lovely bit of all right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/us/politics/25power.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Key_Democrat_warns_against_activist_05242009.html

god ben nelson is such a tool

Just came here to say ^^^^^^, but less eloquently.

The word is Sotomayor:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/obama-makes-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee/index.html?hp

is Bill Brennan dead?

I just wanna say that no matter who the nominee is he or she is totally not good enough for me & is a huge disappointment

I heard Obama is going to pick George W Bush, in a sign of looking forward.

ah crap too slow, NYT main page now says Sotomayor.

I heard Obama is going to pick George W Bush, in a sign of looking forward.

admit that you would pay top dollar to read one of Justice Bush's opinions

I know he has no interest in a liberal "ideologue," whatever that means, but after the 2010 midterms he won't approach a veto-proof majority again. Why not risk a Pam Karlan – someone who can hold their own against Scalia and Roberts?

Yeah, I would have preferred a stronger, more impressive pick -- the kind that would capture law students' fancy and make the liberal wing look highly credible.

"In stunning news, President Obama picked himself for the Supreme Court. "Some say that I'm trying to do too much while in office. To them, I just want to say that I can walk and chew gum at the same time." President George W. Bush, while disappointed with the choice of an "activist judge", said that he was impressed with President Obama's "taking my unitary executive view to a whole new level"."

She ordered the end of the baseball strike so that's good enough for me.

I really don't know much about her, but I can't resist the opportunity:

SOUTH BRONX! SOUTH-SOUTH BRONX!

since i dont follow any judges and shit, can i ask whats not 'strong' about sotomayor?

her left hook

Making left turns when the stoplight turns from yellow to red.

i'm not the biggest Toobin fan but that Roberts article last week in the NYer was scary shit

Sonia Sotomayor?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 9 November 2006 10:24 (2 years ago)

the Roberts article was nothing new - all that stuff was pretty evident at the time of his confirmation, and was in any event made so not long after he took the bench

Agreed.

absolutely. it was just good to be reminded of how scary the guy is

the GOP will be dicks, to be sure, but she'll be a relatively easy confirmation

"after the 2010 midterms he won't approach a veto-proof majority again."

He actually probably will, the Rs are defending many more open Senate seats than the Ds.

o wait

gabbneb (gabbneb) wrote this on thread Bush's nominee to replace O'Connor is Harriet Miers on board I Love Everything on Oct 10, 2005

Kerry or Gore probably would have nominated Sonia Sotomayer or Jose Cabranes. Though maybe they're too Northeastern.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-dynamic-of-the-nomination-of-sonia-sotomayor/

The second claim – and this one will be front and center – will be the classic resort to ideology: that Judge Sotomayor is a liberal ideologue and “judicial activist.” (Put to the side the emptiness of the labels – i.e., that one person’s principle (e.g., a decision invalidating state laws authorizing punitive damages) is another’s “activism.”) There is no question that Sonia Sotomayor would be on the left of this Supreme Court, just not the radical left. Our surveys of her opinions put her in essentially the same ideological position as Justice Souter. In the ideological cases where her rulings have been reviewed by the Supreme Court (for example, Malesko and the pending Ricci case), her views have aligned with the left of the current Court.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_go_su_co/us_obama_supreme_court

Sotomayor is a self-described "Newyorkrican"

uh, ur spellin it rong

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/05/26/sotomayer_talking_points.html

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/05/26/gop_senators_who_voted_against_sotomayer_in_1998.html

(includes Sessions, McConnell and McCain)

If that's how she describes herself, then it's not spelled wrong.

Obama is at his sparkling best at this formal announcement, by the way.

*pop* *fizz*

If that's how she describes herself, then it's not spelled wrong.

it's a matter of pronunciation

is it spelling or pronouncation

pick one and tell us o wise sage of the interwebs

let's all acknowledge gabbknob predicted exactly nothing.