I gotta admit that I am not really qualified to offer my opinion on Supreme Court candidates. I don’t really plan on being very opinionated about whomever Obama picks to replace Justice Souter. I could change my mind if there are parts of their record that I find appalling, but I discount the possibility of that happening. I’m pretty open-minded. I’d probably be enthusiastic about a totally off-the-wall pick like Bruce Springsteen. I definitely see the merits of picking a woman and it would also be nice to see someone who represents a minority community. I don’t have much preference for someone that is already a sitting judge, although it would obviously be a problem if Obama picked someone stupid with no ability to quickly pick-up the fine points of Constitutional Law. Anyone halfway bright would have the remainder of their lifetime to master the issues and could easily become a competent judge. They have plenty of staff.
I guess what I am saying is that I am not an ideologue about the Court. As long as I know that the nominee isn’t going to side with Alito and Scalia, I am willing to give a wide berth to any nominee and I have no preference that they be especially qualified in the conventional sense. If anything, I have a slight preference for an unconventional pick that will bring a non-legal experience to the bench. If you look at the Court’s history from a long enough telescope, this isn’t that radical a view to take.
The only qualm I have about picking an outside-the-box nominee is that there are so few opportunities to get on the court and so many people have crossed all the t’s and dotted all the i’s that it would seem an injustice to pass them all over for someone who hasn’t made it their life’s mission to serve on the Supreme Court. But that’s also the allure of the unconventional pick. We have all these candidates that we can’t really trust because their every move since law school has been orchestrated to make them a viable candidate. They are phony balonies to one degree or another.
One of the main reasons I am so apathetic about the pick is that I know the choice isn’t going to change the makeup of the court. Even if the nominee is radically to the left of Souter, it’s unlikely that they will sway any other Justice to follow their lead. In almost every case, the decisions will be decided the same way as if Souter were still on the court. And, if the nominee has some special powers to persuade Justice Kennedy to their side, that isn’t something I am going to be able to know in advance.
Because this pick is so seemingly inconsequential, I have a hard time understanding the position of conservatives that want the nominee filibustered at all costs. Replacing one pro-choice justice with another means little. But setting a precedent that it is appropriate to use a litmus test on judges can only come back to bite Republicans in the ass.
I don’t like an out of box candidate for the reason that any non-white male pick is going to be doubly questioned on their experience. I don’t want the debate to devolve into “this person never would have been picked if they weren’t from group X”
That will happen with any non-white male nominee regardless of how outside the box they are.
mostly true.
My sibling, a former dean of a top law school, would be in favor of someone who is not already a judge. They would bring a broader perspective and insight. Thurgood Marshall, for example, brought his years of fighting for and litigating civil rights cases. Judges can sometimes be too myopic when looking at cases.
We are a nation of enormous diversity. I agree with your points of getting someone outside the box with possibly, probably, a wider and richer view of reality than a lawyer typically has, not that members of the legal profession can’t be sensitive, kind and empathetic.
In Central New York one of our hardest working and most successful Congress persons of recent years was an undertaker in his pre political life. He was elected to several terms and was, obviously, very popular. People still remember him with fondness – Representative James Hanley.
So, yes, why not someone outside the box? As to Republican filibustering as a matter of course, the GOP continues to trod the path to extinction. They are not the Whigs yet; more like the Federalists without their distinguished leaders. But, with Russ and Karl as their spokesmen, what would one expect for the grand old party except its demise?
…one of our hardest working and most successful Congress persons of recent years was an undertaker in his pre political life.
Wow, that adds a whole new level of meaning to “outside the box”.
While a more liberal/progressive candidate would be good, as said by others it wouldn’t have much effect on the court as a whole.
UNLESS the choice is someone who is from the political/diplomatic arena. I think it’s more likely that they’d have the personality and negotiation skills to persuade the other justices, to the extent that they are persuadable.
I have one requirement: YOUNG.
They must be young so they can outlast Thombert Scalito.
It’s easy to understand why the Repugs are going to throw a hissy fit over whoever Obama nominates — they need to throw meat to their rabid base. They need the media attention to spew their tired old rhetoric about “family values” and the “sanctity of life,” to once again convince the Xtians to support them.
Whoever we pick, please, please don’t let them be a liberal version of Thomas or Gonzalez.
They must, above all else, have integrity, be qualified & be able.
I wouldn’t mind if he picked someone who is not a lawyer and didn’t go to an ivy-league school. A regular person who has a good sense of right and wrong and will write opinions that the average person can understand. They will have plenty of law clerks working for them to handle the technical stuff and school them on the nuances of law. It’s wrong that we expect them to have a legal background in order to be “qualified.” This wasn’t the intent of the founders.
They’ve already used that litmus test on their own nominees.