ABC News: White House Formalizes Supreme Court Short List (down to 6 names)

[usregimechange]

The White House has formalized its short list of Supreme Court contenders and asked six prospects to provide personal background information, with an intensive vetting process well underway, according to sources close to the process.

The leading contenders on the short list: federal appeals court Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Wood, and Solicitor General Elena Kagan, sources close to the process say.

The White House hopes to move quickly on the nomination, with some in the administration signaling an announcement was possible within the next week or two. But a source involved in the process cautioned that the vetting for all of the candidates except Kagan (who was recently vetted as part of her nomination to be Solicitor General) could take longer.

That’s partly because of the thorough process, which is being run outside the White House and is similar to the vetting process for Obama’s vice presidential pick, multiple sources say.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2009/05/white-house-for.html

[blueclown]

1. Glad to see Kagan is on the short list!

[usregimechange]

2. How come you like her? Just curious.

[Thrill]

5. I've been saying I think she'll get it

Already vetted, meets Obama's criteria, shes really young, and good on all the issues we care about. Shes a good safe pick.

[SamCooke]

3. I like Karlan and I don't see her name

:-(

[Pirate Smile]

6. They only list three of the six.

[Sensitivity]

12. Pam Karlan is likely the best mind of the MENTIONED ONES but prob too

outspoken on choice and gay marriage

[StevieM]

14. I would be so happy if Obama picked her. She's perfect IMO (eom)

[Pirate Smile]

4. So who are the other three? n/t

[usregimechange]

8. She didn't mention them, maybe doesn't know but I wish she would have said

[Cha]

7. Thanks, usrchange~

I'm not in any rush for this..the more thorough the better.

[Colobo]

9. Sotomayor!!! The first Boricua in the SC!!!!

[SamCooke]

10. Sotomayor is a diabetic and also a lil over-weight, I hope she doesn' have health issues in the

future, its almost obvious he's gonna pick her.

[usregimechange]

11. I don't think he will, not with this pick

[ShadowLiberal]

13. Why reveal half the names only? Why keep the other 3 a secret?

Why reveal Kagan and Sotomayor for example, over say a white guy (and WH people have said that they were looking into a few white guys as potential supreme court nominees before Souter announced his retirement)? To keep Hispanics & Gays happy that one of their own is being considered? Maybe I'm just over analyzing this though, and it's simply because Sotomayor and Kagan are among the most talked about potential Obama nominees to the court.

I have to say though, the more I hear about Kagan the more I like her, and the more I want Obama to nominate her, looks like Obama's legal people also like Kagan, (as well as Wood) according to the article.

[Unsane]

15. don't like Sotomayor

[elleng]

16. Why not?

.

[Unsane]

17. originally a Bush appointee, abrasive, overweight, ill, somewhat of an intellectual lightweight

there are better Latino/Latina options out there, namely Kim Wardlaw and Ruben Castillo.

I have a feeling Sotomayor is likely going to be the pick, though; I'd be surprised if she weren't.

[elleng]

18. Where'd you hear 'abrasive,' and ' ill?'

.

[Unsane]

19. Ill in that she has type 1 diabetes, abrasive from the Rosen article

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

[elleng]

20. Thanks.

Rosen's follow-up:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6168aeb7-9869-43eb-b401-2204a0d84478

[Supersedeas]

22. Thanks, I had read the same kind of stuff somewhere else and can't find it

[Luminous Animal]

32. Rosen's piece was an anonomously sourced smear

Greenwald takes Rosen and his shoddy journalism to the woodshed here

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/index.html

and here

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/07/rosen/index.html

(1) The single most serious charge against Rosen was raised by Law Professor Darren Hutchinson, who conclusively documented that one of the very few verifiable factual assertions Rosen included was, as Hutchinson put it, "patently untrue." Specifically, Rosen claimed that a footnote from a "senior judge on the Second Circuit" accused Sotomayor of "misstating the law" and "misleading litigants." But the footnote did no such thing -- not arguably, not remotely. It's simply a factually false claim by Rosen, as documented by a fellow law professor.

[Unsane]

34. Rosen's response

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/07/more-sotomayor-rosen-responds-to-critics.aspx

[Luminous Animal]

38. My 2nd link makes mincemeat of Rosen's weak response.

And he still has not corrected the outright falsehood that he attributed to "senior judge on the Second Circuit". Rosen is a putz with a history of disparaging minority and women judicial appointees.

Jeff Rosen’s unsupported whispers about Judge Sotomayor have become the conventional media wisdom in three short days. But more troubling still, he seems to have been arguing that female jurists are by definition “mediocre” for more than a decade! Here’s a piece he did for the New York Times in 1995, arguing that President Clinton’s “single-minded pursuit of diversity, combined with an eagerness to avoid controversy, has kept him from appointing the best available legal minds to the courts.” He then names the many, many white men passed over for federal judgeships and contends that liberal judges lack the intellectual firepower to challenge brilliant conservative jurists because “nearly 60 percent of the Clinton appointments have been minority members and women.” (Read: mediocre.) His single data point to illustrate that mediocrity: Instead of appointing a serious intellectual heavyweight to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (a/k/a “The scholars Court”), Clinton tapped “Diane P. Wood, a little-known professor of antitrust law at the University of Chicago, who is currently an assistant to Deputy Attorney General Anne Bingaman.”

That same mediocre Diane Wood is not only on every shortlist for the Supreme Court today. She’s also widely regarded as one of the finest judges on the bench, to whom other brilliant judges turn for reviews of draft opinions. I don’t begrudge Rosen or other white men who feel they are always the bridesmaid. But the suggestion that a diverse bench must inevitably be a second-rate bench is really quite shocking, even 15 years later.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2009/05/07/the-mediocity-of-diversity.aspx

[Kaleva]

41. perception is reality

If it's already out, even if untrue, that Judge Sotomayor is mediocre, a light weight, abrasive and a bully, many will believe it to be true.

[Rockholm]

21. So overweight people are not allowed on the court, in your eyes?

Why? Break the bench from their weight? Have you seen Scalia? He is a fat fuck.

[CTyankee]

23. An overweight female would actually be a plus since there are many more overweight than

skinny women in this country. They would view her as "empathetic."

[Phx_Dem]

24. IMO, it has nothing to do with being overweight per se.

Not for me anyway. But I do think Diatetes is a concern. Anyone who has Diatetes AND is overweight, is probably not managing their diabetes well, and it's a hideous killer disease.

Many DUers have poo pooed nominating anyone who is over a certain age because they, presumably, wouldn't be on the court for very long. That same could be said for someone with Diabetes.

[Unsane]

33. Critical reasoning not your thing huh?

Go look at Scalia, Thomas et al during their actual confirmation hearings. They weren't fat then. Hell, Scalia was supposedly a marathon runner prior to being appointed. The idea is to get the best candidate who will have the longest shelf-life. If they're overweight NOW, what will they look like in 5-10 years?

This is a SCOTUS vacancy. Dems don't get this chance often.

[MadBadger]

25. So you dont like her because she's overweight? Wow, you really suck.

[Exultant Democracy]

26. Or perhaps you suck for taking what they are talking about out of context?

We are talking about a life time appointment to a SC with a lot of old liberal and young heathy conservatives. Life span is a very very important to take into account with the make up of todays court and overweight people with pre-existing conditions have a tendency to die a lot sooner then healthy people.

[MadBadger]

27. Your defense is laughable.

[Unsane]

31. oh GOD, get off your high horse. This is DU, though. So I expected "outrage"

And yes, being overweight is a valid concern when picking a SCOTUS nominee. I would have the exact same objections if the candidate were male. Overweight, combined with type 1 diabetes, is a very relevant concern.

[Retrograde]

29. 2, maybe 3, of those are valid objections

Being an intellectual lightweight, a Bush appointee (mainly because he did have litmus tests for appointees), and maybe being abrasive are grounds for concern. Being overweight and ill are not - otherwise the entire Supreme Court might have to step down.

Any clues on the other 3 possibles?

[Unsane]

35. health isn't a valid concern when picking a SCOTUS nominee? come back to earth

[Luminous Animal]

36. She is not an intellectual lightweight.

Rosen is a piece of shit for writing that smear job. And she was appointed by GHWB not Dubya.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/07/rosen/index.html

[Unsane]

37. "she was appointed by GHWB not Dubya"

this is supposed to make me feel better? GHWB is also the same guy who appointed Clarence Thomas, the most conservative and batshit crazy of all the SCOTUS justices. GHWB used a litmus test then, and apparently Sotomayor "passed." No thank you.

[Luminous Animal]

39. And he appointed Souter.

You have no evidence that GHWB used a litmus test in appointing Sotomayer. More baseless smears.

[Unsane]

40. The best qualified female judge is one originally appointed by a GOP president?

:eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

42. She was a Dem pick...

Conservative legal analyst Ed Whelan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Edward_Whelan_III) reveals the facts. He also believes that she will be a liberal judicial "activist".

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2Y5MTY2NzcwYjU1N2JiMDIxZTE2Nzc0ODNjYzZkYTc=

Further, when Sotomayor was nominated to the district court in 1991, the New York senators, Moynihan and D’Amato, had forced on the White House a deal that enabled (as I recall the details) the senator not of the president’s party to name one of every four district-court nominees in New York. Sotomayor was Moynihan’s pick. I am reliably informed that Bush 41’s White House nonetheless resisted nominating her and did so in the end only as part of a package to move along other nominees whom Moynihan was holding up. There is, in other words, nothing about the fact that the first President Bush nominated Sotomayor that should lead anyone to believe that she is remotely inclined towards judicial restraint.

[Zynx]

44. That's a pretty shallow view of the world.

[Luminous Animal]

45. Not only that, Unsane is wrong...

Sotomayor was an appointment brokered by NY Dems.

[whistler162]

51. Yes... .how dare President Bush the Elder take

the advice of Daniel Patrick Moynihan that neocon Republican rat!

:sarcasm: HEAVILY ON THE SARCASM:sarcasm:

[Zynx]

43. I have seen a number of pictures of her. None of them indicate someone overweight.

[Number23]

48. What the hell does her being "overweight" have to do with anything??

Do you think that is honestly a legitimate reason to dislike someone as a SC nominee??

[whistler162]

50. Has she gained weight since 2003 when

the photo on Wikipedia was taken?

She maybe a little more than the "normal" body weight for her height and genetic heritage but she doesn't look overweight.

As for ill, she has lived with Diabetes since she was 8 years old. Will it shorten her lifespan likely. But, given that she appears not to have had some of the classic problems that occur with Diabetes type 1 it appears she is keeping herself properly cared for.

[David__77]

28. I hope it's not Sotomayor. We need someone healthy and younger.

Sorry. This is not a case of equal opportunity. This is a case that is pivotal is remaking the country in a progressive image for the long term. That requires nominating an individual who will be able to serve for the long term with the lowest risk of death or incapacitation.

[uponit7771]

30. It will be Sotomayor! ReThugs will fight it & Obama will pull it back due to her being...

...Bush appointee and appoint female.

Nice move no?

[Number23]

46. Article says the list is now six but only mentions three names

I'd be so happy with Sotomayor even though for some reason there seems to be a lot of push back on her. Every article stating that she is a frontrunner always has little gems like this in it:

"But Sotomayor has not dazzled or distinguished herself on the appeals court as a forceful theoretician or writer—something Obama, the former constitutional law scholar who will drive this decision, is likely to want in his Supreme Court nominee, sources close to the process said. Moreover, she’s also been criticized for abrasiveness—which could be problematic on the high court."

I'm thinking this is not a good thing. Gives me all the ammunition I need to keep pushing for Leah Ward Sears! :)

[Luminous Animal]

47. Read my posts above.

Your quote is from an anonymously sourced smear and its author, Jeffrey Rosen, is a goat fucker.

[Number23]

49. Ahh, thanks for that clarification.

To be honest with you, we (once again) have an embarrassment of riches on our hands. During the Dem primary, I remember thinking that I would be blissfully happy with Clinton or Obama.

Now, I think that I would be thoroughly pleased with Sotomayor, Kagan, Sullivan or Sears Ward.

[vaberella]

52. Why do I like Cass Sustein?! I think he's awesome. n/t