Hillary should get the SUPREME Court post, assuming she can stand working with Obama until he’s gone, by which time she’ll be considered top Chief Justice material.  But it’s all fantasy.  She should have been the president, and she had that essentially stolen from her, though nearly everyone will disagree with that assessment, it’s as unlikely that Obama would give her the opportunity to rise to the highest court, as it was that he would have played fairly in pushing her out of the presidency.  It’s clear, that if big business is fearful of Hillary on the Supreme Court, Obama will comply, and keep her out.  He knows that she’s considerably more liberal than he is, and he’ll yield to corporate demands.

Kagan would be a horrible choice. See:

http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2010/04/13/glenn-greenwald-on-why-elena-kagan-would-shift-the-supreme-court-to-the-right-and-the-death-of-dawn-johnsen’s-olc-nomination/

Oddly (and neither she nor I will believe that I am saying this…LOL), I agree with (and go even further re) something Anarcissie suggested: Hillary would be an excellent (perhaps even near-perfect) choice.  Sure, changing SOS’ in the middle of all of the current int’l issues (many of which Hillary is integrally involved in right now) would be highly irregular.  But it would not be the first time an SOS was replaced mid-term.  And unlike other choices, Hillary might well be “as influential a player on the left as the departing justice.”

See: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/brent-budowsky/91723-hillary-for-the-court?tmpl=component&print=1&page;=

Peace.

I guess I should add to what I said before that Mr. O wouldn’t mind practicing a little judo with the appointment, as he did with Sotomayor—that is, pick someone who seems to represent a group of the electorate and sucker the Republicans into opposing him or her and thus seeming to disrespect the group.  But I think this is secondary to the main consideration, which is to appoint someone who will not oppose continued centralization of power and weakening of what’s left of the Bill of Rights and other limits to that power.  In this there is no conservative or liberal; they are all pretty much agreed on it.

purplewolf said: Obama needs to pull a Bush, put who he wants into whatever position he wants to when these goons are off on recess. Worked for Bush all the time.

Sorry but what you are saying is false. Bush did not place anyone on the Supreme court without Senate hearings. And contrary to what you said, it wont hurt the nation to have Senate hearings on Obama’s nominee.

Remember, its patriotic to disagree with this president or with any president and any administration.

At least thats what the Dems said when Bush was president. But now that its Obama, I guess it isnt patriotism anymore… its racism!

No matter whom Obama selects, we the people are going to have to put up with more repukelican B.S. about all their made up illogical foot dragging non-reasons to waste the taxpayers time and money by opposing any person selected for this position. Obama needs to pull a Bush, put who he wants into whatever position he wants to when these goons are off on recess. Worked for Bush all the time.

I am getting totally disgusted with all the wasted time spent by the repugs opposing everything Obama does and not getting real problems taken care of. These idiots were supposedly elected to do a job, now do it.

This was a pretty balanced article, written to inform of what was likely to happen. There were no snide remarks about conservatives or illogical leaps of Leftist faith.

Ruth Marcus just explained how things are. It was informative.

One error, I think. She said about the trend has been for SCOTUS judges to be replaced by more conservative ones except “Ginsburg, who replaced the more conservative Byron White.” True that. It was a pretty good shift to the left, too.

But she attributes this statement to Stevens and I think that is an error. Considering that this same editorial was printed in the Washington Post I am surprised no one caught the mistake. Maybe I am wrong.

Anyway, I would have liked a longer description of Stevens’ role. He was an important influence on other judges, especially on close decisions. We all admire people like that. He not only got to the top of his field but worked hard and eventually commanded respect. I think Kennedy especially was influenced by Stevens’ reasoning.

A person like that cannot be replaced. It takes years to become that influential. A person like Stevens is not replaced even if Obama selects an ultra-ultra-liberal far to the left of Stevens.

So I agree with Ruth Marcus. And then some.

The forever partisanship of the neoconservatives and the Republicans has not only brought right-wing partisan justices into the supreme court through direct appointment but has assured that Obama stays somewhat right of center in his politics. His appointment to replace Stevens will most likely be moderate considering the continued obstructionism and intimidation of Republicans. Progressivism is surely dead.

Obama is a ‘democrat’ like war is peace. Rest assured that Obama will not offer someone who will upset the apple cart that brought you the recent court decision that gave corporations the ability to openly buy the next election. Obama will maintain the status quo, which means protecting the corporate elite.

“Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.” ~Voltaire

Obama plans to rule for two terms.  He will, therefore, pick someone who will not make trouble for him.  This means he will pick a loose-constructionist who is respectful of the established order—big business and big government—and not picky about civil liberties or other hindrances to government authority like limits to the commerce clause or presidential war powers.  Such a person is often humorously called “a liberal”.  I am afraid this leads us to the likes of the abominable Carl Sunstein, although I suppose parking Mrs. Clinton on the Court might seem advantageous.

Instead imagine this scenario….

The United States is invaded by a foreign power, who takes control of the entire apparatus of government. This foreign power then sets up a puppet government whose sole aim is to grind the people of The United states under the heal of repression, while selling each and every man women and child into slavery, while this foreign power loots the economy and enriches itself beyond the wildest dreams of avarice.

Elections are continued to be held, courts still meet in session, however their actions are have no meaning, because freedom is impossible under slavery.

Now instead of imagining a foreign power has taken over this country, imagine instead that the government has been replaced by Wall Street.

Under these curcumstances, it makes little difference who is on the supreme court.

“I’m not arguing, by the way, that Obama would go wrong by picking a Stevens successor likely to edge the court to the right. Indeed, there is a plausible argument that a justice viewed as more centrist might have more chance of bringing along conservative colleagues on a particular issue.”

How many times does that have to be the argument? This is how we’re getting woefully flawed legislation, now we’re extending it to judicial issues. Yes, ultra right-wing types are SO likely to hear out a ‘centrist.’ Also, people who own and run mines REALLY DO care whether their workers live or die. And there is morality in markets. And no one would ever hurt someone else for money. And Scalia is an honest person. Jeezus.