White House Prepares for Two SCOTUS Nominees

Oh dear lord. If we thought it was bad in DC before, this will put it right in the crapper. Via Taegan-

Lawyers for President Obama "have been working behind the scenes to prepare for the possibility of one, and maybe two Supreme Court vacancies this spring," ABC News reports.

"Court watchers believe two of the more liberal members of the court, justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could decide to step aside for reasons of age and health. That would give the president his second and third chance to shape his legacy on the Supreme Court."

VIDEOS: Conservative Group Launches Website Focused on Kagan, Wood, and Sotomayor

By GottaLaff

Remember when George Bush was in the White House, and the Rushpublics said something about giving the president the benefit of the doubt on his nominees because he's, you know, the president?

The Judicial Confirmation Network, a conservative group that encourages the confirmation of judges who interpret the Constitution -- as opposed to "activist" judges -- has launched a new website, www.Obama'sFrontrunners.com.

Nothing like politicizing the process. Hypocrisy: It's not just for breakfast any more!

Justice Oprah?

You want empathy?

We don't know whether she's on President Obama's short list, but nearly one in four Democrats thinks television personality Oprah Winfrey would make a good Supreme Court justice.

So says Fox News, which surveyed 900 registered voters on May 12-13 on a variety of subjects, including the Supreme Court vacancy. Overall, 16 percent of respondents thought Winfrey would do well on the high court -- and 23 percent of Democrats and 10 percent of Republicans.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did better among both groups, as did former Vice President Al Gore. But could either of those two get a book club going inside the reclusive court? Or shower the audiences at oral arguments with new cars?

Must note, it's a Fox poll.

The Rachel Maddow Show: Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III's Ugly Past

h/t Heather.

History Suggests Supreme Court Vote Before August

Excellent, I could use a good summer fight. Via Taegan-

CQ Politics: It's hard to predict exactly when President Obama might announce his nominee to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. But if recent history is any guide, expect a Senate confirmation vote before Congress leaves for its August recess.

Cartoon via , click to enlarge.

The case of the missing law clerks: Souter signals?

By GottaLaff

Whyohwhy couldn't it be Scalia or Thomas?

"The case of the missing law clerks is this spring's most-watched mystery at the Supreme Court," the AP reports.

Eight justices are known to have hired the four law clerks who will work with them in the Supreme Court term that begins in October, but Justice David Souter appears to be the lone holdout.

"Why does this matter? Under the scenario that counts, Souter, 69, would not be hiring clerks because he isn't planning to be in Washington in the fall. A retirement would give President Barack Obama his first chance to nominate a justice and the next few months would bring Senate confirmation hearings."

So who would Prez O nominate? Any ideas?

Who Sits on the Minnesota Supreme Court

By GottaLaff

Senate Guru sent us an excellent e-mail:

With Republican Norm Coleman poised to shift his endless appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, Senate Guru profiles the state Supreme Court Justices who will rule on Coleman's latest appeal, analyzing the Justices for partisan leanings. Senate Guru finds that, based purely on partisan backgrounds, Norm Coleman should have nothing to complain about.

Now, the post:

That naturally got me thinking, who else sits on the Minnesota Supreme Court? The Court has seven members. [...] In addition to the two recusing themselves, there are Justice Alan C. Page, Justice Paul H. Anderson, Justice Helen M. Meyer, Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, Justice Christopher J. Dietzen. What do we know about the possible partisan leanings of these five Justices?

Justice Christopher J. Dietzen has the clearest partisan background of any of the Justices, and he appears to lean Republican (emphasis added by me):

He was appointed to the court by Governor Tim Pawlenty after the resignation of Justice Sam Hanson. Before joining the Supreme Court, Dietzen served as a judge on the Minnesota Court of Appeals from 2004-2008. He was likewise appointed to that judgship by Governor Pawlenty, and then elected to it in 2006. ...

Dietzen also served as an attorney for Pawlenty during his gubernatorial campaign in 2002.

So, Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty's campaign lawyer is one of the five judges that will decide Republican Norm Coleman's appeal. Nothing wrong with that.

Although Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea didn't work (so far as I know) as a campaign lawyer for a Republican statewide candidate for office in Minnesota, she was also appointed to the state Supreme Court by Republican Gov. Pawlenty. Also, Gildea's husband, Andy, is "a top staffer in the Minnesota House Republican Caucus." So, that's two out of five appointed by Republican Pawlenty.

Justice Paul H. Anderson was appointed to the Court in 1994 by Republican former Gov. Arne Carlson. This Minnesota Public Radio story describes Anderson as "active in Republican politics."

Justice Helen M. Meyer was a Jesse Ventura appointee.

Justice Alan C. Page was never appointed; he was first elected to an open seat on the state Supreme Court in 1992. However, in the mid-80's, he was appointed to multiple roles in the state Attorney General's office under Democratic then-Attorney General Hubert "Skip" Humphrey III. Further, Page's name was raised early in the 2006 cycle as a possible Democratic candidate for Senate, coincidentally.

So that's how the judges who will rule on Republican Norm Coleman's appeal break down. Three are Republican appointees (at least two of whom have been active in Republican politics, and the third of whom has a spouse who is a top staffer for state Republicans). One is an independent appointee, for whom I am unable to find indications of partisan leanings. And just one of the five appears to be Democratically-inclined.

Does this mean that I expect the three Republicans to rule in Coleman's favor? Absolutely not. [...]

That said, if/when Norm Coleman loses his appeal before the state Supreme Court, Republicans won't be able to suggest that Coleman didn't get a fair hearing on partisan grounds. And, when Republican blowhards suggest that Senator-elect Al Franken is "stealing" their Senate seat away from them, this will stand as yet another reason that they are full of it.

Thank you, Senate Guru. Go here for the rest. I edited the post down.

Vacancy on the Supreme Court?

By GottaLaff

Let the guessing games begin:

Seth Stern notes Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hinted there could soon be an open seat on the Supreme Court.

During a Friday appearance, Ginsburg said during a question and answer session that the nine justices only take a group picture when a new member is added, noting, "We haven't had any of those for some time, but surely we will soon."

Since Ginsburg recently said she isn't going anywhere, was she referring to Justices David Souter or John Paul Stevens?

Why couldn't it be Thomas or Scalia? Why? Why? Why??

UPDATE-- George Stephanopoulos takes a guess:

Here's my question: what are the chances that Obama DOESN'T pick Sonia Sotomayor?

In her favor, she was appointed to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush. Elevated to the Appeals Court by Bill Clinton. She's a protégé of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and a prosecutor with Robert Morgenthau. Graduate of Princeton and Yale after growing up in the South Bronx.

And, Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic Justice on the Supreme Court bench.

The Big Mystery: Justice Alito M.I.A. from Obama/Biden meeting with Supremes

By GottaLaff

Yesterday, Paddy posted about the meeting between P.E. Obama and V.P.E. Biden and the Supreme Court justices. How wonderfully pleasant! How oh-so-congenial!

Wednesday's meeting was described as a relaxed, get-acquainted session. It included Roberts, seven associate justices and Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

How hunky dorily positive! How... how... wait a minute. Seven associate justices? Seven? Who was missing? Who would even think to snub the future president and vice president when they were clearly going out of their way to say a big introductory howdy-do? And why?

The absence of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who was at the court Wednesday morning for arguments in two cases, was a mystery. He has, however, voiced lingering anger over Senate Democrats, including Obama and Biden, who voted against his confirmation three years ago. When walking on Capitol Hill, Alito has said, he crosses to the far side of the street whenever he nears the Senate Office Building.

It's reassuring to know that a Supreme Court judge, a member of an august body that supposedly personifies impartiality and dispassion, holds a personal grudge and acts out his petulance like a pouting little third grader.

Ten picks for Obama's Supreme Court

Good read on who might be on the short list. Here's a taste-

The president-elect has given a few hints about what he is looking for in a justice. Not surprisingly, he opposed George W. Bush's nomination of Roberts and Alito to the nation's highest court. Obama has praised former Chief Justice Earl Warren, who was instrumental in ending school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, and current moderate to liberal justices such as Breyer and Souter. Last year, Obama spoke before a Planned Parenthood conference about his judicial philosophy.

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom," Obama said. "The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criterion by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

h/t Michael

Obama On "Nightly News" With Brian Williams Pts 1 & 2

UPDATED with new video code. Hope it works!!

Fake Forum: John Sidney McCain flipped on Supremes

By GottaLaff

J Sid McFlippy does it again. He flips more often than his comb-over in a windstorm:

During his weekend interview with Rev. Rick Warren, Sen. John McCain said that if he were president he would have never nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter or John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court.

McCain wasn't a senator when Stevens was nominated, but why did he nevertheless vote to confirm Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter?

It seems he was for them before he was against them.

I couldn't be more surprised to realize that nobody else has brought that up. You mean, the corporate media isn't as thorough and fair as I thought it was? I'm so disillusioned.

What's this? A J Sid bonus twofer. Two posts in one! VeePee alert?

Marc Ambinder noticed that an Ohio Republican official wrote on his blog yesterday that Sen. John McCain would be in Dayton, Ohio the day after the Democratic convention -- and was looking for a "big" venue.

Wrote Alex Triantafilou: "Sen. McCain is expected to host a rally on August 29 in Dayton and is looking for a BIG venue and for a BIG crowd. He'll get it. This is not yet public. I guess I just made it so."

Today, that sentence has disappeared from the site.

So-o-o he's not going to be in front of a BIG crowd at a BIG venue? Is this another flip? Or was J Sid just worried that he wouldn't be able to gather that BIG crowd?