Allan Krueger, I couldn’t agree more, Spitzer would be an excellent choice.

A.K.:

Although I, too, think Spitzer would be a great choice, there is simply no way he would ever get through the confirmation process.  This is because it was not simply a mmatter of being a “cheating husband.”  He broke laws re interstate tgransport for sex and, perhaps even more important re any nomination, hypocritically engaged in exactly the same (illegal) behavior as he was very visibly taking on as NYS AG.

Sadly, he screwed up his change to be U.S. AG, and has done the same re SCOTUS.

We have let the neo-conservative think tanks dictate our country’s direction for far too long. Our country’s decline is encapsulated in the cynical and Machiavellian
—in effect—coup that has transformed our country into a polarized, narcissistic set of people.

Here is my choice: Spitzer! He has been convicted of being a cheating husband… BIG DEAL! He is a straight shooter if you ask me and would make an excellent justice - unlike some of the current Supremes, who are trying to lead the country (from the bench) back to the 19th Century!

I couldn’t agree more!

Hey moderator, I originally just wanted to say, “Amen!” I received a notice that said this was a duplicate of another comment, which was not allowed… Where is the other Amen comment? I don’t see it.

For precisely the reasons posited for Cordray’s nomination such will not occur as it will displease the corporatists who oversee the functions of our government at all levels. A suitable candidate must subscribe to neoliberal economic dogma as well fundamentalist theocracy.

It is so difficult for Dems

Repubs nominate who THEY want and Democrat oppsition
be damned.

The Dems…they have to think and think “oh my, will
Jeff be OK with this, I must not upset him too much.”

Democrats don’t know what they stand for,
Republicans do.  It seems the Dems figure they must have
to stand for what republicans stand for toooooooooo

““Apparently Obama and his predecessors have wittingly or
unwittingly created an imbalance in religious affiliations, as the
court now has six Catholics and two Jews.”“
*************
Hope this doesn’t influence supreme judgement from the bench
but as far as that goes there is more of a problem with the
ideological federalists that sit on the court which surely
confounds the hell out of things now. Especially with those
federalist’s confounded decision of late by granting corporations
almost unfettered influence in the american political scene now
for a supposedly long time to come before a right mix on the
court will or congress will strike down the federalists ‘gift’ to
corporate america.  That should be reversed to make these non
persons once again heavily accountable for their devious and all
too regular criminal behavior and where lobbying is regarded
the criminal act of bribery that it is and makes the the briber
and the bribee both susceptible to indictment and prosecution.

It would really help if a conscientious SCOTUS would rule on the
antitrust situation of the monopoly/duopoly of the mainstream
media that is clogging the whole system with just one main
ideology that defeats any kind of diversity that is supposed to be
a part of what this country is about.

But the biggest jolt is that being able to end the power faction of
those 5 ardent federalist capable of rendering even more
insidious rulings that will have no bearings on the rights of
people but for the new farcical thing of a corporate person.

How much time does the president need to pick a
nominee?  What takes him more than ten minutes?
  He taught constitutional law,  he should know his
beliefs and many able souls.

As long as you are imaging things.  Imagine this, the President has a set and puts
Jonathan Turley the constitutional law professor on the Supreme Court.

dihey:

I have been screaming about limited terms for SCOTUS members for over 25 years.  I understand that it makes sense that justices’ terms should straddle more than one president.  That is a given, for obvious reasons.  But life terms are simply ridiculous - and counter-productive to the law.

SCOTUS terms should be 16 years, with a maximum of 20, so that they straddle at least two administrations (particularly in the case of two two-term presidents in a row), but allow for “new blood” on a more regular basis.

This seems so obvious and common sense that I cannot fathom why it is not discussed more, if not actaully put into practice.

The only rational solution which, alas, requires a change in our Constitution is to appoint SCOTUS members for a restricted length of time such that every president has and average chance of nominating one justice.
Some persons who have the chutzpah to call themselves “progressives” have proposed that Mr. Hoh b nominated.

Um,  While marking it “D”, he DID say Jeff Sessions was the ranking MINORITY member of the committee, didn’t he.  That means he’s GOP.

“that Sen. Jeff Sessions (D-Ala.) sails. Sessions, of course, is the Judicial Committee’s minority leader, whose own appearance before the panel as a judicial nominee ended in failure.”

Error! Senator Sessions is a Republican.

SCOTUS like the federal government should reflect the census in its makeup.