ConfirmThem

http://www.slate.com/id/2217714/

I guess in a pre-emptive strike against conservatives, Dahlia Lithwick discusses the private lives of Sullivan and Karlan. In addition, she either links to or makes comments about the possible sexual orientations of Kagan, Sotomayor and Napolitano. She directly states that Sullivan and Karlan are lesbians, and implies that Kagan and Napolitano are. She even suggests that people might think Sotomayor is lesbian as well because she had only a short marriage after college and never has had any children.

You do realize that Sullivan was reported to have been the other finalist for Solicitor General, right? You didn't mention it in your post, so I'm not sure if you were aware of that.

Because Kathleen was a finalist for SG and didn't get it, chances are that exactly as you say -- she could have gotten any other lower job in the Obama DOJ (Deputy Associate Attorney General of This and That) and decided that she wanted only Solicitor General or barring that, a spot on the federal bench.

I actually think Sullivan is a much, much higher probability for SCOTUS than people are giving her credit for. Kagan probably isn't happening (he's saving her for a later vacancy), and Wood, I think, is far less likely to relocate from Chicago (where her husband has a sweet job) than people realize. So if Obama doesn't connect with Sotomayor and/or doesn't think she's smart enough (per Jeffrey Rosen), I think Sullivan, Wardlaw and Sears may well be the most likely finalists. All have compelling reasons why he might choose them (Sears has been an electoral winner in a red state, Wardlaw is associated with the Clintons but that hasn't affected Obama's choices for other jobs up to now; plus, Wardlaw obviously is Hispanic), but Sullivan easily stands out as the smartest of these three (her flunking of the bar exam notwithstanding) -- a clearly very, very important consideration for Obama.

So I agree with you that Sullivan always has been headed either to the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS. I think there's every chance that Sullivan winds up being one of Obama's finalists for SCOTUS, though.

(On a side note, it's interesting that if Obama wants to avoid questions about his choice's personal life and pick a married female nominee to SCOTUS, he only really has three options among the most bandied-about names: Wood, Sears and Wardlaw.)

I have a hard time believing Obama will appoint a lesbian to the Supreme Court. This could well be a bridge too far for our president as I think most Americans would feel this is just too much. It's one thing to begrudging accept gay marriage, it's another to have a gay member of the highest court in the land. I just can't see a majority of the public accepting this.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sessions-would-consider-gay-nominee-...

"Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday he could consider a gay nominee for the nation’s highest court.

“I’m not inclined to think that’s an automatic disqualification,” Sessions said of a gay nominee. He said he intends to consider only the nominee’s legal judgment when deciding his support for Justice David Souter’s proposed replacement.

“I may disagree with some legal opinion on those issues, but I think fundamentally it will be up to the president to submit somebody who would unite the country and would be a clear statement of a mainstream judge who commits himself to the law,” said Sessions, who will have a key role in any confirmation debate.

Gay-rights groups have voiced hope that Obama will select the first openly gay Supreme Court nominee, and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund has offered two suggestions: Kathleen Sullivan, a former Stanford Law School dean, and Pam Karlan, another Stanford professor."

I dunno about "most" Americans, but certainly a not unsignificant percentage would give pause to the thought of an openly gay J.

But it's the flunked bar exam that has to kill her chances for SCOTUS. Rush, Annie, Glenn, Sean, Laura & Drudge would turn that into an insta-meme. "Did Harriet Miers fail HER bar exam?" Barry's bench is deep & "diverse" enough to not have to deal with that or Wood's pedo case, IMO, or even Sotomayor's divorced, childless, brassy bulldog mug, FTM.

Plus, she may have a case of the entitles, which was the final nail of doom for Luttig, tho he deserved nothing after not throwing himself in front of the Souter train.

Speaking of Luttig, at least he had the decency to resign with plenty of time on the clock, which is more than McConnell and Randolph can say. Just unreal, mindblowing. We certainly have gotten(and will get) what we deserve.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/6/721853/-Scalia-Owned-by-Students,-Flips-Out!

His home address is in the kos thread, and it's claimed in the header that photos of his grandchildren were obtained.

So, are we wimps, or do some UVA, UTexas, BYULaw, etc, professors & students do the same thing on Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer?

It's all perfectly legal, all matters of public record.

Among other gems in the comments is a whole string about how Scalia was in the *majority* in Kelo.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

http://tinyurl.com/chtgot

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7513795&page=1

In interviews with USA TODAY before Souter's retirement announcement Friday, Ginsburg said the court needs another woman. "Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. I don't say (the split) should be 50-50," Ginsburg said. "It could be 60% men, 40% women, or the other way around. It shouldn't be that women are the exception."

Seriously, can someone shut her up?

3 years ago, when W was making selections:

Ginsburg stressed that the president should appoint a "fine jurist," adding that there are many women who fit that description.

"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," she added during a brief interview Wednesday night.

I think I heard that Sen. Thune used the phrase "a bridge too far" on this matter. I wonder what Sen. Johnson (D-SD) thinks about this!

did President Obama say he would have a nominee to name by the end of the week (5/8)? It's 5/9. Is he finding some challenges in the vetting process? Will there be some problems even WITH the vetting process?

One more thing, could we start a new post on the subject, or are those with the palantirs waiting until a nominee is actually publically announced?

Obama is probably assuming a 3 month timeframe.

Alito was nominated Oct 31st, and confirmed January 31st.

June 1st gives a nominee 4 months. I don't see a reason to throw a name out early and open her up to a longer period to get bashed by us.

I always assumed Souter was gay, so there's not much of a change there. Souter was a lock to vote for gay marriage anyway so whoever replaces him won't affect that.

This appointment won't relaly matter all that much but if Scalia or Kennedy goes we are in big trouble.

This is why I said Scalia should have stepped down in the summer of 2006 when Bush could have easily replaced him with a McConnell, a Luttig, a Sykes, a Cornyn, a whoever and we would have had that seat for the next 20 years instead of praying every night that an overweight 73 year old can last another 7 years or longer potentially. You have to think startegically with the Court. It's like a chess match. You always have to be a few moves ahead.

I like how Sessions, who I like generally, says it's not an automatic DQ to be gay. How generous of him. He's not inclined to think it's automatically disqualifying.

If Bush had been able to appoint a 5th conservative to replace Stevens in say the summer of 06, I wouldn't care if the guy spends every night on all fours in some seedy theatre in Georgetown and has the complete Bette Midler collection on CD in his car if he'd be the 5th vote. I mean lets be honest, Justice Thomas' sex habits certainly had some issues of their own from everything I've read. Not that I care on iota. He's probably the best Justice on the Court. Even when I disagree with his opinions, which is seldom, I've never read one of them and thought "Now come on, this is just absurd", like I do with just about every sinbgle one of the liberal Justices.

As for Sullivan, her failing the bar exam likely is an automatic DQ. I mean, the bar exam is pretty basic stuff.

I still think he goes with either Wood, or some surprise pick.

But it doesn't really matter. there's 60 dems and whoever he picks will be confirmed easily.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/13/scotus.obama/index.html

Politico mentions that some in the White House are pushing Comey for SCOTUS. Considering he worked in the Bush DOJ, I would find this shocking. I know it won't happen, but wouldn't it be likely he would be a Souter in reverse? How could he get so high up under Bush and be a judicial liberal?

Not to forget about them, but Obama only has 3 made thus far.

Bush had 11 at this time period.

Could they be taking their eye off the ball?

Some thoughts:

--Whacker77, the raising of Comey's name is downright bizarre. Obama can't get away with nominating a white male for this vacancy, and everyone knows it. It's hard to believe that anyone in the White House would be pushing for Comey given demographic realities for Obama (to say nothing of ideological risks). I think this is just one of those stories that Politico manufactures.

--zendari, you raise a great point. I would note, though, that with Harry Reid and Pat Leahy's successes so far at strong-arming the nominations of Hamilton, Davis and Lynch through the SJC so quickly, I have a feeling that the Obama administration can catch up to Bush's level of COA nominations pretty quickly. I'm not sure if they're taking their eye off the ball so much as the fact that the DOJ seems to be temporarily preoccupied with some other issues at present. I also wonder if Obama is getting ready to roll out a huge package of COA nominees (it's interesting that there still are no DC Circuit nominees yet). Or alternately if he's just going to let COA nominees drip out one at a time, as quietly as possible, as he's done up to now.

That's true, so far. All 3 of those guys will be confirmed soon, which will pretty much match the 2001 confirmation total, and the Dems have the ABA mowing thru ratings rather than slow walking them.

That said, a SCOTUS nomination in year 1 is a curse in disguise for precisely this reason; there's few COA nominations in the pipeline, and I don't see any further COA nominations being made during the 3-4 month SCOTUS nominee window.

If we can dodge too many CoA nominations in year 1, there won't be many of them in year 4, and hopefully we can allow him to pack the 2nd and 9th to his heart's content in years 2 and 3.

I'm told Governor Granholm just got on a plane to DC, for what it's worth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/17kagan.html

“I want a Brennan or a Marshall, someone clearly on the liberal side,” said Michael Ratner, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, referring to liberal court icons William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall.

“I don’t think Kagan is at that end of the liberal spectrum,” said Mr. Ratner, whose nonprofit legal group has helped lead the push for greater legal protections for prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. “Why they would put someone in who might not be a liberal anchor for the court is really bothersome, and I don’t see Kagan playing that role.”