Possible Future SCOTUS Nominees over the Next Four Years(Exclude Garland)

[MarkD]

Aren't there any more people in the legal profession these days who are like - who strive to emulate - Supreme Court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Benjamin Cardozo, or Hugo Black? What the Supreme Court needs to have is people who are dedicated to objectivity; people who divorce their political views from their interpretations of law.

[Mike67]

Aren't there any more people in the legal profession these days who are like - who strive to emulate - Supreme Court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Benjamin Cardozo, or Hugo Black? What the Supreme Court needs to have is people who are dedicated to objectivity; people who divorce their political views from their interpretations of law.

Those days are probably over for good

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Aren't there any more people in the legal profession these days who are like - who strive to emulate - Supreme Court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Benjamin Cardozo, or Hugo Black? What the Supreme Court needs to have is people who are dedicated to objectivity; people who divorce their political views from their interpretations of law.

There are probably plenty, but neither side will appoint them to the Supreme Court because the other side would then have a major advantage.

[MarkD]

Aren't there any more people in the legal profession these days who are like - who strive to emulate - Supreme Court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Benjamin Cardozo, or Hugo Black? What the Supreme Court needs to have is people who are dedicated to objectivity; people who divorce their political views from their interpretations of law.

There are probably plenty, but neither side will appoint them to the Supreme Court because the other side would then have a major advantage.

So plainly true that I sat out of the elections of 2004, 2008, 2012, and the mid-terms after them. I voted for Evan McMullin this year (write-in) because I was trying to feel some hope that he might be the one who will search for a Holmes/Cardozo/Black and appoint them.
The Court is just plain too political. For decades it's had nothing but mediocrities who don't see how often they are bending the meaning of the Constitution to strike down laws they don't like. I don't see the point in participating in a "democratic republic" when our power to make laws is so often thwarted incorrectly.

Those days are probably over for good.

If that's true, then I have only one over-arching legislative goal: this country needs a constitutional amendment that rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to make its meaning narrower and clearer. That part of the Constitution is the one most frequently litigated before the Supreme Court (Source: Wikipedia article about the 14th Amendment), and from what all I've read, it's the most frequently misinterpreted. If that part of the Constitution get rewritten to be narrower and clearer -- to give states much more precise guidelines about what they cannot do, and to narrow the discretion that the Supreme Court exercises in choosing which laws to strike down -- then maybe I'll permanently resume participation in the election process. Because maybe then it won't matter if the Supreme Court has nothing but mediocrities on it.
Maybe.

[Mike67]

Aren't there any more people in the legal profession these days who are like - who strive to emulate - Supreme Court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Benjamin Cardozo, or Hugo Black? What the Supreme Court needs to have is people who are dedicated to objectivity; people who divorce their political views from their interpretations of law.

There are probably plenty, but neither side will appoint them to the Supreme Court because the other side would then have a major advantage.

So plainly true that I sat out of the elections of 2004, 2008, 2012, and the mid-terms after them. I voted for Evan McMullin this year (write-in) because I was trying to feel some hope that he might be the one who will search for a Holmes/Cardozo/Black and appoint them.
The Court is just plain too political. For decades it's had nothing but mediocrities who don't see how often they are bending the meaning of the Constitution to strike down laws they don't like. I don't see the point in participating in a "democratic republic" when our power to make laws is so often thwarted incorrectly.

Those days are probably over for good.

If that's true, then I have only one over-arching legislative goal: this country needs a constitutional amendment that rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to make its meaning narrower and clearer. That part of the Constitution is the one most frequently litigated before the Supreme Court (Source: Wikipedia article about the 14th Amendment), and from what all I've read, it's the most frequently misinterpreted. If that part of the Constitution get rewritten to be narrower and clearer -- to give states much more precise guidelines about what they cannot do, and to narrow the discretion that the Supreme Court exercises in choosing which laws to strike down -- then maybe I'll permanently resume participation in the election process. Because maybe then it won't matter if the Supreme Court has nothing but mediocrities on it.
Maybe.

That probably wont change and the Supreme Court will stay the way it's been for the last couple of decades.

[Saint Milei]

Justice Janice Rogers Brown

[Nym90]

Sandoval is the kind of Republican that would be nominated only if there was a Republican President facing a Democratic Senate. Other than the nomination of Justice Kennedy, you have to go back to the Nixon Administration to find such a setup.

Stevens, Souter, Thomas.

Duh. Wow, my mind was in a different place. Generally though, a President without the Senate has tended to moderate the nominees with only one exception. The Democratic Senate should have defeated the nomination of Clarence Thomas with immediate haste. Kennedy was understandable. Thomas was not. A Democratic President attempting to fill a SCOTUS seat with a Republican Senate hasn't happened in the modern age prior to this year.

Thomas was confirmed because several Democratic Senators, especially in the South, were deathly afraid to vote against a black nominee, and many others were deathly afraid of filibustering a black nominee.

[Saint Milei]

Sandoval is the kind of Republican that would be nominated only if there was a Republican President facing a Democratic Senate. Other than the nomination of Justice Kennedy, you have to go back to the Nixon Administration to find such a setup.

Stevens, Souter, Thomas.

Duh. Wow, my mind was in a different place. Generally though, a President without the Senate has tended to moderate the nominees with only one exception. The Democratic Senate should have defeated the nomination of Clarence Thomas with immediate haste. Kennedy was understandable. Thomas was not. A Democratic President attempting to fill a SCOTUS seat with a Republican Senate hasn't happened in the modern age prior to this year.

Thomas was confirmed because several Democratic Senators, especially in the South, were deathly afraid to vote against a black nominee, and many others were deathly afraid of filibustering a black nominee.

Yeah, that was back then though. Now, there is no way he would be confirmed. It's honestly disgusting how the game is played.

[Nym90]

Thomas got through 52-48 so Dems clearly could have filibustered him. Among the Dems who voted yes were senators from South Carolina, Georgia (both of them), Alabama, Louisiana (both of them), and Oklahoma.

Other than Oklahoma those states all have very high black populations and that was clearly a factor in their votes.

A few southern Dems did vote no like the Senators from West Virginia (both), Kentucky, Tennessee (both), Arkansas (both), Texas, North Carolina and the other one from Alabama. You'll notice those tend to be the whiter states in the South.

Of course today Democrats hold no Senate seats from any of the states listed above except for Joe Manchin. So yeah, things have changed.

[Nym90]

Not to derail this thread too much but another key factor in Thomas's confirmation was the yes votes he received from GOP senators from the Northeast: Maine, New Hampshire (both), Rhode Island, New York, Delaware.

Jim Jeffords of Vermont was a no, but Lincoln Chafee's dad voted yes.

And other than Susan Collins, the GOP holds no Senate seats from any of those states today.

And there was also Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania, who was quite confrontational with Anita Hill at the hearings. Would have been hard to predict at that point that he'd become a Democrat someday.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I think he's going to pick a middle of the road conservative, not a Scalia type.

[Nym90]

I think he's going to pick a middle of the road conservative, not a Scalia type.

That would be smart given that the Democrats could filibuster any nominee considered a hard-line conservative.

Mitch McConnell argued that the American people should have a say in the choice of the next Justice through the election. The fact that Clinton won the popular vote thus gives the Democrats political justification to filibuster Trump's choice.

[Torie]

I think he's going to pick a middle of the road conservative, not a Scalia type.

That would be smart given that the Democrats could filibuster any nominee considered a hard-line conservative.

Mitch McConnell argued that the American people should have a say in the choice of the next Justice through the election. The fact that Clinton won the popular vote thus gives the Democrats political justification to filibuster Trump's choice.

Surely the Pubs will kill off the filibuster for a SCOTUS nominee if the Dems play that card, no?  They have the power to do that any time. Just ask Harry Reid.

Personally, the filibuster should be killed off entirely (it's a horrible practice), but I digress.

[Torie]

I think he's going to pick a middle of the road conservative, not a Scalia type.

My dream would be someone who actually tries to follow the law, no matter where it leads, rather than be a predictable block vote, as on most controversial cases, the existing justices are. The one who isn't is erratic, and not a very good legal technician. Sad. Yes, Roberts also sometimes departs (his Obamacare decision was inspired genius, and I think did faithfully follow the law), and may have the best mind on the Court, which is why he is my favorite justice.

[Kingpoleon]

I think he's going to pick a middle of the road conservative, not a Scalia type.

My dream would be someone who actually tries to follow the law, no matter where it leads, rather than be a predictable block vote, as on most controversial cases, the existing justices are. The one who isn't is erratic, and not a very good legal technician. Sad. Yes, Roberts also sometimes departs (his Obamacare decision was inspired genius, and I think did faithfully follow the law), and may have the best mind on the Court, which is why he is my favorite justice.

Roberts also ruled against national recognition of your marriage. It's very impressive that your belief in his exception legal jurisprudence so heavily outweighed that.

[Torie]

I think he's going to pick a middle of the road conservative, not a Scalia type.

My dream would be someone who actually tries to follow the law, no matter where it leads, rather than be a predictable block vote, as on most controversial cases, the existing justices are. The one who isn't is erratic, and not a very good legal technician. Sad. Yes, Roberts also sometimes departs (his Obamacare decision was inspired genius, and I think did faithfully follow the law), and may have the best mind on the Court, which is why he is my favorite justice.

Roberts also ruled against national recognition of your marriage. It's very impressive that your belief in his exception legal jurisprudence so heavily outweighed that.

The law as it is on the books, is not co-entensive with what is good policy. Who knew? Thus I am very busy in my hood, and may move on to the county and NYS - if I live that long with some energy and sentience. It in many aspects is a freaking mess.

Anyway, twisting the law to effect one's own ends, is something that is totally against my hard wiring, and I am a very hard wired type of guy. Been that way since birth really.

[daveosupremo]

Justice Janice Rogers Brown

She should have replaced Rehnquist. C'est la vie.

[IndustrialJustice]

Not sure why so many of these suggestions center upon elected officials (in the Senate, no less). Not happening.

Republicans will likely nominate whoever the Federalist Society petitions them to. The Democratic contenders depend on which wing of the party takes power. Bernie Sanders would almost certainly not have nominated Merrick Garland, for example.

[Young Conservative]

Republican:
Catherine Hanaway: No judgeship
Leslie Rutledge: no judgeship, plus she's a future senator/governor
 Pat DeWine:  possible, although moderate enough to anger the base.
Jeffrey Chiesa: no judgeship
Eric Skrmetta: not enough experience, random
Corey Stewart: would never pass, not enough experience
Greg Edwards: not enough experience

There are so many people more likely than these. These are incredibly random.

[IndustrialJustice]

Anyone not mentioning Amul Thapar hasn't been paying attention to the courts.