The U.S. Supreme Court

yeah so not gonna happen
but i would like leah ward sears--not only a woman but a black or vice versa

Lisa Coleman for Supreme Court Justice. The movement begins HERE.

not a gay, not yet a woman

justice queen latifah

she can rule in my jurisdiction

It's really more important to have the justice that can make the best argument for gay rights than to have a justice that is gay. If a non-gay justice supports gay rights but makes better constitutional arguments for gay rights, that's the better choice.

I mean Scalia isn't good for the right because he's conservative, he's good for the right because he can make conservative arguments that have at least a superficial appearance of soundness, sureness and clarity with regard to the Constitution.

Plus he's gay

lol

umm I don't know how well "gay" and "conservative" equate - the value of having an underrepresented minority on the court seems clear

id say conservatives are pretty gay

umm I don't know how well "gay" and "conservative" equate - the value of having an underrepresented minority on the court seems clear

Look at how great Clarence Thomas has been!

Thomas was an inspired choice, in purely political terms. As a justice he is, of course, a joke in very poor taste, but a joke who votes exactly as he was intended to vote. Given the ridicule he invites on himself and so obviously grimly endures, it is a wonder that he doesn't go on a killing spree.

What kind of ridicule does he endure?

I'm reading Supreme Conflict at the moment, and I've underestimated Thomas' influence on the court, especially on Scalia, whom he's been accused of aping (when the evidence shows that Thomas swayed Scalia in the early days).

i'm sure every lawyer in the SCOTUS bar has a million jokes about him, he's ridiculed in the press all the time for not asking questions during oral argument and for having an RV and just being a total weirdo, plus he's considered the poorest writer on the court.

he's ridiculed in the press all the time for not asking questions during oral argument and for having an RV and just being a total weirdo

Rehnquist, Roberts, and Ginsburg all say he asks sharp questions in conference. He's a weirdo, sure (and a really angry one too), but I'm not going so far as to call him an embarrassment or hack because I don't agree with his jurisprudence.

“I have to admit,” he said, “that I’m one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned.”

I'm reading Supreme Conflict at the moment

how's that? have just started the nine by jeffrey toobins.

Nowhere near as good as Toobin's. Her prose is lumpy, and she has little patience with analyzing cases; she's more interested in People Magazine profiles (which makes this a pretty entertaining read, actually).

Rehnquist, Roberts, and Ginsburg all say he asks sharp questions in conference. He's a weirdo, sure (and a really angry one too), but I'm not going so far as to call him an embarrassment or hack because I don't agree with his jurisprudence.

I'm not saying he's an embarrasement because of his jurisprudence. I'm sure he's a great guy to work with. I'm saying he's an embarrassment b/c unlike say, Scalia, he's a shitty writer and plus you know the dishwasher shit. And then there's this:

“Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”

“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”

Those bits deserve their own thread.

"Stevens isn't a liberal either."

But as someone said at the beginning of this thread years ago:

"Stevens is the only one of the Justices worth a damn when it comes to criminal law."

http://thepage.time.com/2009/05/07/sessions-open-to-gay-justice/

open to gay tendencies but what about gay activities?

I mean Scalia isn't good for the right because he's conservative, he's good for the right because he can make conservative arguments that have at least a superficial appearance of soundness, sureness and clarity with regard to the Constitution.

Plus -- I'm sad to say -- he's probably the best writer on the Supreme Court.

yeah, i've read a handful of his opinions (usually via lithwick) and it's like damn i totally agree with you, dude, waht is going on

Scalia's great genius is a myth

yeah wtf i can't stand the way he writes. almost as bad as kennedy.

I don't think he's a genius. I think he's knows how to turn a very sharp phrase, explain difficult notions simply and directly, and he began calling out other Justices in his opinions, a practice that hadn't been done before Scalia (at least not nearly as much, or as well).

he's funny

There u go.

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.