Supreme Nominee: Who will Obama tyrannize us with?

[Nice Squirrel]

The current top bets are:

• Sri Srinivasan, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
• Jane Kelly, current Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Merrick Garland, current Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
• Amy Klobuchar, current Minnesota Senator
• Paul Watford, current Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Jacqueline Nguyen, current Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Pam Karlan, current professor of law at Stanford Law School.
• Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, current Supreme Leader of Iran

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987836/obama-supreme-court-shortlist
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nominations/index.html

 

[Derec]

[*]Sri Srinivasan, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Difficult to pronounce name, but was confirmed by Senate 97-0.

[*]Jane Kelly, current Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Obama already appointed two women. Is there some sort of Democratic moratorium on appointing men?
But she was also approved almost unanimously.

[*]Amy Klobuchar, current Minnesota Senator

Certainly not!
More Than 100 Members of Congress Sign Letters Urging Attorney General Holder To Enforce Federal Obscenity Laws

She was one of the few Senate Demcrats (another named one is Diane Feinstein) who backed this demand.
Besides, why is she being listed as a potential nominee? She was never a judge and although not required most justices have been judges.

[*]Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, current Supreme Leader of Iran

Good one!

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't have to be a lawyer or a judge.

It could be anybody.

I would like to see Stephen Colbert on the Court.

That would at least add a little humor to the show.

He might even get Clarence out of his shell.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Someone that makes the Republicans obstructionism look bad.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Jon Stewart!

 

[untermensche]

Someone that makes the Republicans obstructionism look bad.

If they don't look bad already then you just don't have eyes.

The most obstructionist bunch of do nothings in history.

The game is rigged just fine. The money is flowing to the top. The poor are staying good and poor.

All is working as designed.

So they obstruct, because they like the way the game is rigged.

 

[James Brown]

Harriet Miers? Because it would make the obstructionist Republicans self-destruct?

 

[ZiprHead]

Srinivasan seems to be brought up quite a lot on the intertubes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Al Sharpton or maybe a black panther that is now a professor.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Toonses, the cat who could be a Supreme Court judge.

 

[maxparrish]

None of the above.

Obama will make a political choice: he will likely choose an Mexican Hispanic or Black to make it a campaign issue and to energize the vote. The Republicans, if they weren't so stupid, would "advise" M. Estrada or Janice Rogers Brown.

 

[Rhea]

[*]Jane Kelly, current Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Obama already appointed two women. Is there some sort of Democratic moratorium on appointing men?
But she was also approved almost unanimously.

Why does gender even come up? She was confirmed almost unanimously. Obviously she's one of the most highly qualified. So at that point gender is irrelevant. Isn't it?

And what would be wrong with having 4 of the 5 judges be female?
I don't even understand why you would be asking this seriously.

 

[Derec]

Why does gender even come up?

It really should not. But given how important identity politics is for Democrats if Obama nominates 3/3 women I do not believe for a second it is a coincidence.

She was confirmed almost unanimously.

So was the Sri guy and I am sure several others.

So at that point gender is irrelevant. Isn't it?

It should not be relevant, but it unfortunately often is. Certainly Sonia Sotomayor wasn't the best pick but she was selected because she was a double (possibly tripple, not sure if she is a lesbian) identity politics whammy.

And what would be wrong with having 4 of the 5 judges be female?

Nothing if they are really the best qualified and not selected due to their gender as I am pretty sure Obama has done with Red Sonia and Kagen already.

- - - Updated - - -

Toonses, the cat who could be a Supreme Court judge.

Not as bad a pick as Jimmy is suggesting.

 

[Rhea]

And what would be wrong with having 4 of the 5 judges be female?

Nothing if they are really the best qualified and not selected due to their gender as I am pretty sure Obama has done with Red Sonia and Kagen already.

So nothing is wrong with choosing a woman here.
Nothing.
No matter how many previous women have been chosen.

Think about your premise - that some previous woman was less than perfect in your eyes, you would deny one who is eminently qualified?
Are you trying to pass off some bull theory that every man in the past has been perfect and that's why another man should be chosen instead?

Dumb argument.

Nothing is wrong with choosing a woman here. And the ones on the list are eminently qualified.
So your argument is about something else. Something not valid here.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think Srinivasen. All the Republicans voted for him just a few years ago, so that plays into meme that the GOP are just being obstructionist for partisan purposes and he's a minority, so that plays into the meme about how the GOP are a bunch of racists. This nomination fight is gold for the Dems and he helps them play it up.

Also, he might be qualified for the job or something like that. That's really kind of tertiary.

 

[ZiprHead]

It really should not. But given how important identity politics is for Democrats if Obama nominates 3/3 women I do not believe for a second it is a coincidence.

Since almost the only people to bring up gender or race in the nominees has been the conservatives, I think you have demonstrated how important identity politics is to conservatives.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think Srinivasen. All the Republicans voted for him just a few years ago, so that plays into meme that the GOP are just being obstructionist for partisan purposes and he's a minority, so that plays into the meme about how the GOP are a bunch of racists. This nomination fight is gold for the Dems and he helps them play it up.

Also, he might be qualified for the job or something like that. That's really kind of tertiary.

Makes it even worse that it doesn't even remotely pander to a particularly useful minority either.

 

[RavenSky]

Obama already appointed two women. Is there some sort of Democratic moratorium on appointing men?
But she was also approved almost unanimously.

Why does gender even come up? She was confirmed almost unanimously. Obviously she's one of the most highly qualified. So at that point gender is irrelevant. Isn't it?

And what would be wrong with having 4 of the 5 judges be female?
I don't even understand why you would be asking this seriously.

You are aware whom you are replying to, right?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-analyst-loretta-lynch-most-likely-candidate-replace-scalia

Loretta Lynch?

 

[fromderinside]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-analyst-loretta-lynch-most-likely-candidate-replace-scalia

Loretta Lynch?

How about a republican Governor from a swing state like Nevada's Brain Sandoval. the real kicker is that he's pro choice and he's made it through the senate before as a Bush nomination for a seat on the US district court on an 89 to 0 vote.

picking a Hispanic Republican who would likely be blocked by a Republican Senate would have starkly political consequences, especially in the months leading to a presidential election. Republicans are already on thin ice with Hispanic voters, who have voted increasingly for Democrats in recent years:

from: https://morningconsult.com/2016/02/obamas-supreme-court-legacy-choice/