BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice

[Lunar]

Updated Intrade numbers (again, low volume):

Sotomayor 40.0
Kagan 20.0
Wardlaw 20.0
Granholm 12.0
Sears 12.0
Wood 10.0

(All of the above are women btw.)

I'd put my money on Wood (pause) because of the University of Chicago connection.

And Wood, I hear, has a sharp legal mind

[Mr. Morden]

Updated Intrade numbers (again, low volume):

Sotomayor 40.0
Kagan 20.0
Wardlaw 20.0
Granholm 12.0
Sears 12.0
Wood 10.0

(All of the above are women btw.)

I'd put my money on Wood (pause) because of the University of Chicago connection.

Biggest strike against Wood is that she's old....58.  OK, not *that* much older than the others......but still, if Obama is trying for a long lasting impact on the court, he might be tempted to go with someone a few years younger.

[Mr. Morden]

Kagan passes Sotomayor on Intrade:

Kagan 30.0
Sotomayor 25.0
Wardlaw 20.0
Wood 11.0
Granholm 9.9

[DownWithTheLeft]

For some reason I've always liked John Yoo

[The Head Beagle]

I'm still liking Sotomayor's chances, Jeffrey Rosen article or no. The considerations here aren't only political; in his legal academy days, Obama wasn't seen as a huge fan of advancing liberal causes through the courts.

Also, if Obama has a liberal Scalia up his sleeve, it might make sense to save it for the Ginsburg slot, when the base will be most concerned about not replacing RBG with a centrist, and the Reps won't be able to complain that the court is taking a big leftward shift.

(All subject to the provisos that (a) none of us really has a clue, and (b) that as Sam Spade said earlier, applying these political labels to judges oversimplifies things considerably.)

[Purple State]

Kagan passes Sotomayor on Intrade:

Kagan 30.0
Sotomayor 25.0
Wardlaw 20.0
Wood 11.0
Granholm 9.9

Unless Obama and Rahm have all the buys in Intrade, how much of a predictor is this really?

[Mr. Morden]

Kagan passes Sotomayor on Intrade:

Kagan 30.0
Sotomayor 25.0
Wardlaw 20.0
Wood 11.0
Granholm 9.9

Unless Obama and Rahm have all the buys in Intrade, how much of a predictor is this really?

People are predicting based on what they know of Obama's psychology and the political imperatives he's faced with, as well as their knowledge of the candidates.  It's probably only worth very little....but no less than the betting on the veepstakes last year....or on any appointment for anything.

[Lunar]

since those betting loved people like Hillary when she wasn't even vetted by the Obama campaign, they might be just an aggregate representation of sensationalism

[The Duke]

I'm starting to think its Kagan and not Sotomayor.  Kagan is younger and more liberal.  This is Obama's best chance he'll ever get to put a real liberal lion on the bench.  The rationale for Sotomayor was always that she was confirmable (Latino, woman, and wasnominated for the District Court by Bush I).  Why would Obama care about confirmable at this point?  There's no danger, absent a scandal, of the nominee losing.  Why not just put up the youngest most liberal person of stature you can find?

[Lunar]

I'm starting to think its Kagan and not Sotomayor.  Kagan is younger and more liberal.

Her #1 strategic qualification is that the Senate has already approved her

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Wouldn't it be kind of odd to give the job to someone he just gave a different job to a couple months ago?

[Senator Ben]

Wouldn't it be kind of odd to give the job to someone he just gave a different job to a couple months ago?

Not really.  Frank Murphy and Robert Jackson both served very little time as Attorney General before FDR appointed them, in 1940 and 1941.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm starting to think its Kagan and not Sotomayor.  Kagan is younger and more liberal.  This is Obama's best chance he'll ever get to put a real liberal lion on the bench.  The rationale for Sotomayor was always that she was confirmable (Latino, woman, and wasnominated for the District Court by Bush I).  Why would Obama care about confirmable at this point?  There's no danger, absent a scandal, of the nominee losing.  Why not just put up the youngest most liberal person of stature you can find?

I agree with your reasoning, although I think the CW is that, in all likelihood, either Stevens or Ginsburg will retire next year.....with the other one then retiring maybe a year or two later.  So Obama is almost certainly going to get another Supreme Court appointment soon-ish.  Thus, he could give Kagan another year or two of experience and appoint her then, while appointing Sotomayor or someone else this time.  I guess it depends on who else would be in the mix for a second Supreme Court slot.

[Mr. Morden]

Sotomayor retakes the lead on Intrade:

Sotomayor 35.0
Kagan 25.0
Wardlaw 24.0
Wood 15.0
Sears 11.2
Granholm 8.0

[Landslide Lyndon]

Sotomayor retakes the lead on Intrade:

Sotomayor 35.0
Kagan 25.0
Wardlaw 24.0
Wood 15.0
Sears 11.2
Granholm 8.0

Apparently the trashing of Rosen and his hit-piece worked well.

[Purple State]

Sotomayor retakes the lead on Intrade:

Sotomayor 35.0
Kagan 25.0
Wardlaw 24.0
Wood 15.0
Sears 11.2
Granholm 8.0

Apparently the trashing of Rosen and his hit-piece worked well.

Interesting, especially because she happens to have the most incriminating of clips readily available for branding as an "activist" judge.

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/11/1928014.aspx

The SCOTUS shortlist?

According to a couple of sources in the know, there appears to be a working short list of about six names for President Obama’s Supreme Court pick. The co-frontrunners (in no particular order): Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Obviously, folks can slice this list all they want: Five are women; one’s Hispanic; one’s male; and all are in their late 40s or early 50s, except two (Wood, 58, and Garland, 56).

Keep an eye on Napolitano. For this pick, it would be surprising if Obama named someone he didn't either know well or trust personally. Wood, Kagan, and Napolitano all fit this bill (Wood taught at the University of Chicago with Obama, and Kagan and Napolitano already have top slots in the administration). As for Napolitano, remember that she endorsed Obama early on (despite Emily’s List pressure to do otherwise). And from people familiar with the president's thinking, he's been as impressed with Napolitano as anyone in his cabinet. They click. That matters....

[Lunar]

I saw that, I don't buy it.  The White House is keeping the cards close to its chess at the moment.

If anything, these things *could* be leaked from a low level official to let the conservative oppo be focused on them [not that some of these aren't also on the official list too].

Napolitano's advantage is that she also has already been cleared by the Senate.  I don't know if Obama wouldn't rather have someone with a distinguished Constitutional opinion, hmm.

[Landslide Lyndon]

What I find curious is that while everyone is talking about Sotomayor, nobody seems to mention the other Hispanic woman in the mix, Kim Wardlaw.

Is she considered less qualified, more divisive or what?

[Purple State]

Why would Napolitano be on the list. The Senate would have a fiesta with ripping her apart, most notably for that report the Republicans managed to misconstrue as calling veterans possible terrorists.

[Lunar]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/11/1928014.aspx

The SCOTUS shortlist?

According to a couple of sources in the know, there appears to be a working short list of about six names for President Obama’s Supreme Court pick. The co-frontrunners (in no particular order): Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Obviously, folks can slice this list all they want: Five are women; one’s Hispanic; one’s male; and all are in their late 40s or early 50s, except two (Wood, 58, and Garland, 56).

Keep an eye on Napolitano. For this pick, it would be surprising if Obama named someone he didn't either know well or trust personally. Wood, Kagan, and Napolitano all fit this bill (Wood taught at the University of Chicago with Obama, and Kagan and Napolitano already have top slots in the administration). As for Napolitano, remember that she endorsed Obama early on (despite Emily’s List pressure to do otherwise). And from people familiar with the president's thinking, he's been as impressed with Napolitano as anyone in his cabinet. They click. That matters....

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/scotus_handicapping_a_short_list.php

[Senator Ben]

Merrick Garland would be excellent.  He's a former Brennan clerk, so he probably learned quite a bit from his boss.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why would Napolitano be on the list. The Senate would have a fiesta with ripping her apart, most notably for that report the Republicans managed to misconstrue as calling veterans possible terrorists.

Even more, the fact that she gets along well with Obama is a big reason NOT to appoint her at the Supreme Court.
Why take away from the cabinet such a competent person, which also happens to be a good friend of you? 

[Lunar]

Merrick Garland would be excellent.  He's a former Brennan clerk, so he probably learned quite a bit from his boss.

No need to spend too much time thinking on the token white male.

[Senator Ben]

Merrick Garland would be excellent.  He's a former Brennan clerk, so he probably learned quite a bit from his boss.

No need to spend too much time thinking on the token white male.

Shame, he and Kagan are my two favorites.