• Home
  • News
  • Who Will Replace Justice Souter?

U.S. Supreme Court

Who Will Replace Justice Souter?

Posted Apr 30, 2009 9:23 PM CST
By Edward A. Adams

In the wake of reports Thursday night that Justice David Souter has told the White House he plans to retire from the Supreme Court, attention will turn immediately to possible picks to replace him. In fact, informed speculation began during the presidential campaign.

In the ABA Journal's November issue, sources close to then-candidate Obama discussed lawyers he might nominate for a Supreme Court vacancy.

The four lawyers most often mentioned by sources at that time as possible Supreme Court picks by a President Obama were:

• Judge Diane Wood of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A Clinton appointee to the appeals court, Wood is seen as one of the country’s smartest judges. She’s a liberal who has authored a fair amount of high-profile dissents in the conservative 7th Circuit. In 2002, one such case regarded an Indiana law mandating in-clinic counseling for women seeking abortions. Bucking the majority, Wood wrote that the law was burdensome to women, particularly those in rural areas.

• Seth Waxman, a partner at Washington, D.C.’s WilmerHale. A former Solicitor General in the Clinton Administration, the 57-year-old Waxman has argued more than 50 cases before the high court. In private practice he’s represented corporate clients and financial institutions. But he’s also argued successfully for basic rights of habeas corpus on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

• Elena Kagan, U.S. Solicitor General. Dean of the Harvard Law School at the time of our November story, Kagan had her 1999 nomination by President Clinton for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit blocked by the Senate Judiciary Committee, then controlled by Republicans. Kagan, 48, whose academic work focused on First Amendment issues and administrative law, is considered a skilled consensus builder.

• Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A political centrist, the Bronx-born Sotomayor has been regarded as a potential high court nominee by several presidents, both Republican and Democrat. Reared by her widowed mother after the death of her father, a tool-and-die worker, she has an attractive life narrative and an even more attractive resumé. She was an editor of the Yale Law Review, did heavy lifting as a prosecutor under legendary New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, and worked in private practice as an intellectual property litigator. She was first appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush, then to the appeals court by President Clinton.

MSNBC's Chuck Todd has more names for the short list:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Apr 30, 2009 9:56 PM CST

A landsman, a pinsman, a tinker or a tailer,
A doctor, a lawyer, a soldier or a sailor,
A rich man, a poor man, a fool or a witty?

Flag this comment

2.

Charles Lopez
May 1, 2009 2:26 AM CST

The one thing that is good about Obama replacing Souter is that he would be a good Judge so he knows people that will be able to be successful.

Flag this comment

3.

Ellen Barshevsky Sheketovits
May 1, 2009 5:00 AM CST

It is time for Ellen Barshevsky to be nominated to the HIGH court.  She has been patiently waiting in the wings.  Her fiancee, Alan Sheketovits wants to nominate her.  How about it, McLeod?  Can you put your weight behind this nomination?

Flag this comment

4.

Antony Scalita
May 1, 2009 6:28 AM CST

I have a potted houseplant that would be a suitable replacement.

Flag this comment

5.

preston stein
May 1, 2009 6:28 AM CST

I note that the age of the male is given; those of the women not given

Flag this comment

6.

Alan's Rival
May 1, 2009 6:33 AM CST

Yes for Ellen!  Finally some exciting Senate hearings to watch!  How will she replace her all CAPS in speech on the big screen?  Stay tuned . . .

Flag this comment

7.

Mikey
May 1, 2009 7:14 AM CST

How ‘bout Barry’s pal Cass Sunstein?

Flag this comment

8.

B. McLeod
May 1, 2009 7:56 AM CST

I miss Ellen.  Several posters tried to get her to go for the Solicitor General post, but she very humbly declined.  For SCOTUS?  I think that would be great.  The opinions would be a lot more colorful, and churlish men would have to watch their step in oral argument.

Flag this comment

9.

J.D.
May 1, 2009 8:37 AM CST

KAGAN:  Complete lack of judicial or appellate experience. Has never been a judge or even argued a case in a court of appeals. And Obama, Biden, and Hillary joined filibuster of Alito. Seems like there’s more justification for that with her.

Also, she argued that it violates the First Amendment for the United States to withhold funds from colleges that ban the military from recruiting on campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected her view.


SOTOMAYOR: Disagrees with the motto atop the Supreme Court “equal justice under law,” saying she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider defendants’ “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

Recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of racial discrimination raised by firefighters.

Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.”


WOOD: She authored an opinion refusing to allow prisons to require inmate participation in drug rehabilitation programs that used “explicit religious content,” even where such programs were the only ones available, effectively allowing inmates to refuse treatment entirely. (Kerr v. Farrey) She also advocates use of RICO statutes against anti-abortion protesters.


No word yet on how much they each owe in back taxes….

Flag this comment

10.

B. McLeod
May 1, 2009 9:18 AM CST

None of them would be as good as Ellen.

The chauvinists she’d scold,
And always would be zealous,
Her husband would have money,
To go to the alehouse,
Though he’d become besotted,
She’d be a legal maven,
I leave it up to you,
If she is not worth havin’.

Flag this comment

11.

Mikey
May 1, 2009 10:24 AM CST

I just watched the video clip and, granted this is MSNBC.com, but it absolutely sickens me that all they talk about is the gender/ethnicity of the potential candidates.  As if that is the most important factor.  As if it should be a factor at all.  Unbelievably ironic, isn’t it, that it is now the left that is primarily focused on race, sex, etc. Can’t we just focus on actual, color-blind qualifications, or would that be just too crazy??

Flag this comment

12.

B. McLeod
May 1, 2009 10:41 AM CST

That would not be fair, because (as we know from her predilection for all things pink), Ellen is NOT color-blind.

Flag this comment

13.

J.D.
May 1, 2009 10:43 AM CST

Yes, the left is obsessed with the physical appearance of individuals. Credentials, resume, ability… None of that matters. It’s not the content of the character; it’s the color of the skin. Sorry, MLK, Jr. The Left hates your little dream.

The Left wants to implement Affirmative Action at the Supreme Court level.

Maybe the fired Yolanda Young from C&B should apply.

Flag this comment

14.

Daniel Reitman
May 1, 2009 11:08 AM CST

Note to Mr. Stein:  They did list Ms. Kagan’s age.  Given that she’s new in the S.G. post, however, I’d expect her to be saved for a later nomination.  (Justice Stevens is 89 and Justice Ginsburg has medical problems, so both of them may retire within the next few years.)

Also, considering that all of the current Justices had judicial experience before being appointed, it might not be a bad idea to add someone who doesn’t.

My prediction is Sotomayor.

Flag this comment

15.

J.D.
May 1, 2009 12:30 PM CST

Appointing someone with no judicial experience might be a good idea?

Well I guess we just elected a president with no prior executive experience. So that would be consistent.

Flag this comment

16.

john
May 1, 2009 1:02 PM CST

Mikey,
What are you talking about?  Race and gender have always been the primary considerations for the Supreme Court.  It just so happens that until 1980, it always meant white males got the job.  So what’s the problem with considering “others” after a 200+ year monopoly of white males?  Poor Mikey, sooooo discriminated against.

Flag this comment

17.

J.D.
May 1, 2009 1:11 PM CST

^ Thinks MLK, Jr. was an idiot.

Flag this comment

18.

Mikey
May 1, 2009 1:56 PM CST

John - “reasoning” like yours (assuming you’re not just being facetious) is exactly what I’m talking about.  Think about it for a second—you’re essentially saying that the answer to historical discrimination is MORE discrimination.  I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense.  The problem is not considering “others” for the Supreme Court, the problem is people who, apparently like you, actually continue to think in divisive terms of “others,” i.e., “us” and “them,” and appearance over substance.  Personally I have no problem at all with anyone of any race, sex, age, whatever, being considered for a seat on the Supreme Court.  I just don’t think that their race, sex, etc., should be a factor at all, let alone a primary focus.  Call me crazy, but I’d like think that a person, any person, could be considered on the relevant merits - experience, cognitive and analytical reasoning, judicial disposition, etc.

Flag this comment

19.

JAG, CALWP
May 3, 2009 1:55 PM CST

The next USSC Justice should be a a young, wise, female in her late 30’s - early 40’s, blessed with longevity genes who:

  1. Is a Jew with Black, Native American and Asian ancestors;
  2. Has a smattering of the genetic profile of former Justices, O. W. Holmes, L. Brandeis, B. Cardozo, H. Black, W. Rutledge, F. Murphy, and T. Marshall;
  3. Was reared in a ghetto and earned her credentials through use of “Churchill’s Law of Perseverance of 29 October 1941”:
      * “... never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.” ....


BTW, I’m a male WASP MCP who has been a registered Republican for over forty (40) years.

In my MCP opinion, females BEGIN to blossom into womanhood at age 40, arrive at womanhood at age 50, shift to overdrive at age 60.

My opinion of Holmes’ “tender years” is a lawyer under the age of 50 years, but there are exceptions. Surely President Obama can find a candidate meeting the above criteria.
2009-05-03-1 1555 -0400

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.