The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve Blog
Possible Supreme Court Nominees

Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


1. Harvard Law School professor Larry Tribe, whom Obama helped write his anti-Scalia paper “The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics” by contributing his deep knowledge of cutting-edge physics he learned from some very heavy discussions at Punahou while smoking Maui Wowie.

2. A Breyer II: a highly competent white guy who gets confirmed fast and quietly

3. Michelle

4. Obama resigns and President Biden nominates him

5. A full-out War on Women combatant to gin up another feminist freakout like the one in October 1991 over allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas that launched the Clintons (of all people) into the White House during the 1992 Year of the Woman.

6. Hillary (Biden steps in as the anti-Bernie candidate)

7. Kimiko Matsuda-Lawrence (expected tenure on the Supreme Court: until 2086)

8. Elizabeth Warren

9. Vaughn Walker

10. A moderate, easy to confirm nonwhite: Akhil Reed Amar, Stephen Carter, Richard Thompson Ford

11. Eric Holder for controversy or Loretta Lynch for noncontroversy

12. Genius T. Coates

13. Amal Clooney


198 Comments to "Possible Supreme Court Nominees"

Commenters to Ignore Follow
Endorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Tribe is too old.

    Doesn’t the nepotism law passed in the wake of RFK at DoJ prevent Michelle?

    I believe they might just be shameless enough to try #4, however, then the Obamas have to forgo becoming centi-millionaires for giving speeches. Are they really going to leave all that money on the table?

    As for #5, who’s the most radical female Asian con-law prof in the land? Extra points of she’s lesbian or a trans or both.

    Harold Koh is plenty radical and Asian, but alas, straight and male.

    #6: at least the Clintons are already rich and Bill can keep making money. Face-saving for Hillary. But she is too proud to bow out of the race.

    #7: first gay and/or trans justice. I’m betting on that one. (that is, my #7, you keep adding stuff and the edit time window is running out).

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Don’t think Obama would be interested. He’s too stupid and lazy and narcicisstic. He couldn’t stand to be out of the limelight as are justices when they are working. He needs more than the once every- six-months cycle of of attention. He also needs to be free to give speeches as $1 mil plus, and to play golf six times a week. The job he wants more than anything is that of ex-president.

    • Replies: , ,
  3. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    80% change of 2 (competent white guy).

    Others would be too easy to reject and would make Obama look weak and would help Republican nominee.

    Confirming a justice now would be a sign of strength for Obama, which draws voters. Obama’s passage of Obamacare made him look like a winner and helped him get elected in 2012.

    • Replies:
  4. I’ve read indirectly that McConnell has said that there would be no vote on a Scalia replacement until after the election. So I expect Obama will make the nomination with an eye to maximum Presidential electoral impact. My prediction is a black candidate, or possibly a Hispanic, so that the eventual Democratic nominee can campaign, inter alia, on Senate Republican anti-minority bias in refusing to confirm the SCOTUS nominee. I’m thinking Holder–he already hates whites with a passion and would have no reservations in stoking racial resentment for all its worth to whip blacks into a frenzy in November.

  5. This is a prime opportunity for Obama to stoke the base, so my money is on a highly divisive minority (probably black woman) choice that he counts on the GOP stalling, thereby winding up black voters for Hillary and possibly resurrecting the War on Women meme.

  6. I agree Obama wouldn’t want a SCOTUS associate justice job. It’s one of nine and he lacks the intellectual firepower, although Sonia Sotomayor has shown that’s no genuine impediment. I think that he would want to be head of an international organization: UN Secretary General would be ideal, but Putin won’t permit that. World Bank or IMF? He’s innumerate. WHO? Takes some medical knowledge. What about UNESCO? It’s amorphous enough that he could probably fit in.

  7. I’ll steal the Holder idea.

    • Replies: , ,
  8. Could Obama nominate a new associate justice as a recess appointment to get around the Senate (if only temporarily)?

  9. 6- no way

    7- That would be very scary.

    9- most likely, I think, but this nomination will really reveal what kind of mind Obama has vis-a-vis his professional training… if he’s really a radical first and lawyer second, he might go with 7…

  10. Decisions of the United States Courts of Appeals are considered affirmed when there is an even split 4-4 split by the Supreme Court.

    The challenge to Obama’s executive amnesties is before a conservative Reagan appointee to the U.S. District Court in Texas. He has ruled that as a preliminary matter Obama’s executive amnesty likely violated the Administrative Procedures Act and therefore ordered that it be stopped until the final resolution of the case.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed his order in a long order of his own. The Supreme Court rejected a petition to take up the Fifth Circuit’s order.

    It is very likely the Texas judge will make a final decision that the executive amnesty was illegal and the Fifth Circuit will again affirm.

    As a result, as long as Scalia is not replaced, any decision of the Fifth Circuit can survive a challenge with just the four remaining Republicans.

    Obama may try to appoint a “business friendly” “moderate” democrat. That means the moneybags wing of the GOP gets to keep all the anti-middle class, anti-privacy, pro-bank, pro-pollution rulings, and on top of that get LEGAL access to the current 11 million illegals, who could all get work permits, plus millions more new illegals who will be happy to take the empty dishwashing/landscaping/nanny jobs that don’t ask for papers.

    Obama has already received the courtesy of painless Senate confirmation of two liberal justices, the same as George W. Bush. With less than a year left in his term, and an approval rating less than 45%, there is nothing unfair with saying the choice of the public in November should be the one to fill Scalia’s seat. If Americans want to choose dysfunction and demographic decline, that is unfortunate, but let’s at least have a vote first and give President Trump the chance put the first populist on the Supreme Court in decades.

    • Replies:
  11. Now that it’s 5 Catholics and 3 Jews, it’s NOT going to be a, you know, mainstream Protestant (like Walker). Or, say, Pastafarian.

    The new power bloc is Moose Limbs. Who ya got?

    Oh yeah. Barry the Magic Lame Duck.

    So #6 is where my thoughts are leaning as well.

    Hillary is about as likeable as a festering boil on the back end of a shite-demon. The writing’s on the wall there.

    Biden’s rise to power in DuPontian/easy consumer credit Delaware has been so carefully handled, massaged, and covered up, he’s been groomed for something big for a very long time despite having nothing to offer but the creepiest persona in several galaxies.

    What I’d like to hear is whether anybody else suspects foul play re: Scalia. Getting our October Surprise 8 months early.

  12. Leftist conservative [AKA "GOD ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ"]
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    once trump gets into the white house, maybe he will take the smart move and not nominate anyone–4 liberals vs 4 conservatives….a SCOTUS decision is only binding if it is a majority opinion…thus the SCOTUS could be removed from jurisprudence, at least from any controversy that would split 4 to 4.

  13. Maybe Amy Klobuchar. She’s young enough to be worth nominating, and senators generally like other senators so she probably has a good chance of being confirmed.

    edit: I now see that she ruled out the idea in 2010, but maybe she’s changed her mind.

    • Replies:
  14. Hey Otto,

    Hey, just because you hate the man . . . lol

    Now, back to your feeding tube, bib, bible, and remote.

    Unz community looking forward to more of you critique ness.

    • Replies:
  15. Eric Holder or another Black. Hillary makes a deal with Obama and Black voters. She nominates a Black justice and Obama agrees to not prosecute her for the email offenses.

    Another option is Obama and the Senate Republicans make a deal and Obama gets to put someone he wants. Both Obama and the Republicans will be out of power next year. So do something now.

    • Replies:
  16. Democrats will never nominate another man as long as they’re the majority on the SC. Once there’s at least 5 women on it, then men have a chance of a Dem nomination.

    Take a look at the CA Supreme Court:

    No white men allowed. This is what they envision for the SC.

    • Agree: Clyde
    • Replies: ,
  17. Assuming Obama is an extreme partisan focused on 2016, which is questionable, the best course for him would be not Holder, but a liberal whose implicit white Americanism is off the charts. I am thinking cute kids, frumpy but cheerful wife, military vet, middle America upbringing, served as a prosecutor. Or maybe Elizabeth Warren, a natural blonde from Oklahoma with a kindly and earnest bearing. Now if there is a black judge out there who fits all these criteria except the white part, that might be fine, but I am not aware of any.

    The white working class are the real swing voters this election, and they will stay home or vote Trump if they feel the national Democratic party is just coastal elites plus minorities. For the Democrats, if the election is about black people and their grievances, the GOP wins. If it is about the Mitt Romneys of America firing people and making billions, then Democrats will win.

    • Replies: ,
  18. Sleeper possibility: Obama nominates a CAIR/Brotherhood Moslem.

    After all, Governor Christie has appointed Moslems to the New Jersey bench.

    Upon confirmation the Moslem justice would take the name Mohammed al-Sharia. Which, doggone it, rhymes with Antonin Scalia.

    “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme” – Mark Twain

  19. Keep an eye on Sri Srinivasan of the DC Circuit. He’d be a Breyer-style appointee ideologically but with bonus nonwhite “Asian” points.

    • Replies: ,
  20. jender: tinder for judges. swipe left, swipe left, no, no, back, swipe right, swipe right, swipe right!!!

  21. 1/ Bill (see WH Taft)

    2/ Kamala Harris

    3/ Andrew Cuomo

    4/ Wendy Davis

    5/ Kwame Kilpatrick

    6/ some Kennedy (the dream will never die)

    7/ Saul Goodman

  22. 10. A moderate, easy to confirm nonwhite: Akhil Reed Amar, Stephen Carter, Richard Thompson Ford

    I don’t know about the other two, but Amar is a standard liberal.

    9. Vaughn Walker

    Interesting, an older, socially liberal business friendly judge first appointed by Reagan. Posner is another. McConnell might not let one come to a vote, but if he did, hard to see someone like this not getting all the Democrats and 7 or 10 Republican votes.

  23. Tiny Dancer

    • Replies:
  24. 2. A Breyer II: a highly competent white guy who gets confirmed fast and quietly

    That would give the court 4 Jews until Ginsburg or Breyer 1 go. The historical allotment was one starting with Frankfurter before Breyer/Ginsburg/Kagan got it to 3.

  25. Hecta-millionaire. And, considering his last two picks, my two pesos is that he picks a black women or man.

  26. This is a mixture of serious suggestions and joke suggestions, but Akhil Reed Amar’s “Biography of the Constitution”is a great book on the subject and I strongly recommend reading it. I’ve always thought he would be a fine justice. Btw, he is White.

    The Hilary idea is an interesting political play, but ironically since she still has a chance of being elected President, she would never survive the confirmation process.

    The commentator who thought up Elizabeth Warren also had a good idea from the pure politics perspective, though she is probably qualified. She would make the Democrats’ base happy, the Republicans would oppose here, and the general public would wonder what they are making a fuss about.

  27. Whoever it is should automatically be rejected pending Trump’s election, which is what the Democrats do every time….but then, the Republicans are the Stupid Party.

  28. This is crushing news for the GOP. They are now faced with an impossible choice. They can let Obama nominate another lunatic and watch their party evaporate as angry voters simply abandon them entirely. Or, they can stall and face the wrath of the lunatics in the press corp. For what is a mostly just a collecting of time serving pussies, this is a disaster.

    • Replies:
  29. Totally agree, but there’s no need to make excuses for holding the nomination, everybody does it…

  30. Warren is kinda old isn’t she? But I think a Senator would be a logical choice since they are all in bed together so BHO can probably sneak one by. Can’t guess who that might me.

  31. If Hillary is smart, she’ll promise tonight to nominate Obama himself if the seat is still vacant when she becomes president.

  32. Steal an idea Christopher Buckley and nominate Judge Judy.

    That Obama-voting traitor to his father’s legacy at least had one good idea worth stealing.

  33. Youngish, business friendly, plenty of implicit whiteness:

    For more than a decade, until June 30, 2012, Fitzgerald was the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.[2] Prior to his appointment, he served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York for 13 years and as Chief of the Organized Crime-Terrorism Unit since December 1995, where he participated in the prosecution of United States v. Usama Bin Laden, et al., United States v. Abdel Rahman, et al., and United States v. Ramzi Yousef Rahman, et al.

    As special counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, Fitzgerald was the federal prosecutor in charge of the investigation of the Valerie Plame Affair, which led to the prosecution and conviction in 2007 of Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff Scooter Libby for perjury.[3][4]

    As a federal prosecutor, he led a number of high-profile investigations, including ones that led to convictions of Illinois Governors Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan, media mogul Conrad Black, several aides to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley in the Hired Truck Program, and Chicago detective and torturer Jon Burge.

    Fitzgerald was born into a Roman Catholic family of Irish descent in Brooklyn. His father (also named Patrick Fitzgerald) worked as a doorman in Manhattan. Fitzgerald attended Our Lady Help of Christians grammar school, before going on to Regis High School. He received degrees in economics and mathematics from Amherst College, Phi Beta Kappa, before receiving his JD from Harvard Law School in 1985.[5] He played rugby at Amherst[6] and at Harvard he was a member of the Harvard Business School Rugby Club.

    Fitzgerald married Jennifer Letzkus in June, 2008.[7][8] It is his first marriage and her second. The couple have two children.

    • Replies: , ,
  34. Just come up with your worst-case, most absurd scenario. That’s it. Also, expect the GOP to grumble through the process but then go ahead and confirm the 25 year old black trans CUNY law student whom Obama picks based on a recommendation from hir professor.

    • Replies:
  35. I don’t know about the other two, but Amar is a standard liberal.

    I’ll give Amar this, his breakdown of the Bill of Rights is excellent. He emphasizes how “the Military Amendments” inform an overall picture of the Bill as uniting populism, arms bearing, voting, and the power of juries. Find another contemporary liberal who would say the same thing. I’ve actually persuaded a number of gun control people with his reasoning. Another liberal anomaly, he does this with a strong originalist, source texts vantage. I don’t know all of his philosophy, but from what I’ve read so far it’s a hell of a lot better than what any other likely prog nominee is going to be like.

    • Replies:
  36. #10 is most likely. Are there any prominent federal Asian judges? That would fill the racial rainbow when combined with Thomas and Sotomayor. I also noticed that Wikipedia was quick to update the U.S. Supreme Court page for Scalia.

  37. I wonder why Steve Sailor didn’t mention disgraced Ziocons’ hero Gen. David Petraeus, who has been reinstated to his past glory.

    On January 31, 2015, the Pentagon decided not to “punish” disgraced Gen. David Petraeus (with Jewish family roots) further on recommendations of Defense secretary Ashton Carter, Jewish lobby favorite.

    “Given the Army review, secretary Carter considers this matter closed,” Jewish-owned Washington Post quoted Stephen Hedger (Jewish), assistant secretary of defense, as saying in a three-sentence letter.

    The letter was sent out to individuals who asked Carter not to consider any more reprimands against Petraeus, including Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman Senator John McCain (Christian Zionist), Senator Jack Reed (Jewish) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Jewish). According to military law, the Pentagon had the right to seek further punishment

    This means, Gen. David Petraeus, military poodle of Zionism, currently on probation after paying $100,000 will keep his 4-star military rank and $220,000 annual pension. Earlier in January, there were reports that Carter was mulling Petraeus’ demotion, who then would be liable to return hundreds of thousands of dollars of his pension.

    In July 2010 Philip Giraldi, former CIA official, claimed that David Petraeus had close ties with Israel Lobby through Max Boot and two Kagans, Kimberly and Fred.

  38. If Obama wanted to appoint Fitzgerald to something, he would’ve done so by now. Obviously they don’t see eye to eye from their Chicago days: BHO plays ball, Fitzgerald doesn’t.

  39. Wow. That’s an impressive resume.

  40. I suggest choosing a dart throwing monkey.

    It may not understand anything but it would be more accurate in the area of constitutionality.

  41. The news of Justice Scalia’s death today gave me an immediate sense of foreboding. He was not a young man, but he was very far from home and in a remote location. That and the timing will give the conspiracy theorists something to chew on. Of course, it’s hard not to think that our collective situation is suddenly much worse even if the man died peacefully in his sleep after a life well lived.

  42. Dirk Dagger [AKA "Chico Caldera"]
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    It’s either Prof. Jeannie C. Suk, cuz she es muy caliente in that mean girl way or Jacqueline L. Fuchs, Obamo’s HLS amiga cuz how cool to have a Runaway on los SCOTUS!

    • Replies: , ,
  43. Obama’s passage of Obamacare made him look like a winner and helped him get elected in 2012.

    Passing Obamacare cost the democrats both houses of congress in 2010. Not fighting against Obamacare, and nominating for president the one and only republican who absolutely could not criticize Obamacare, helped Obama get elected in 2012.

  44. I hope he does nominate Hillary.

    And then I want to be in the room when she tells him what he can do with the nomination.

  45. In my dreams, stall the Obama nomination until after the election and have the GOP president elect nominate former Judge J. Michael Luttig.

  46. In the spirit of Whizzer White, how about an NFLer on the Court?

    Page was forced to retire at 70 last year. But that’s the state’s rule. He’s just the age for a SCOTUS rookie.

  47. I wish the others at the Texas ranch could have done a Weekend at Bernie’s and just dragged Scalia’s corpse around. The thought of Obama having another appointment gives me agita.

    • Replies:
  48. Eric Holder is actually not the best idea. He’s one person that Senate Republicans would probably unanimously oppose. Meaning, they could allow his nomination to come to the floor and defeat it. Obama would probably be better off to nominate someone who can get at least 8 or so GOP votes so as to force McConnell to not let a vote come to the floor.

  49. Is Liz warren really SCOTUS grade? I ask that as someone who admires (some of) her work. And yeah yeah I know she’s smarter than Sotomayor. I wager most people with something on the ball consider that a glitch

  50. Fitzgerald’s handling of the Valerie Plame & Conrad Black cases were utter & total travesties of justice.

    Which, I guess, makes him a perfect candidate for a seat on the Supreme Court.

  51. Not disagreeing with anything you said, but for a successful law professor, he (Amar) seems remarkably unaware of his intellectual limitations. If he has any self-awareness he will decline any offer to be an American federal judge at any level.

  52. It’s either Prof. Jeannie C. Suk… or Jacqueline L. Fuchs how cool to have a Runaway on los SCOTUS!

    Suk and Fuchs… yeah, we know what you’re thinking. Why not just write “SCROTUS”?

    Which is singular, by the way.

    • Agree: Percy Gryce
    • Replies:
  53. How about a White Protestant…..

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: , ,
  54. @LuisGutierrez



    (Most here won’t know who the last is, but I’ve twice barraged her with tough questions on Twitter during #AskTheWH events. She’s replied both times with weak boilerplate responses and didn’t reply to follow-ups. If those here had helped with that, we could have shown up Obama’s point person on amnesty. Carry on losing.)

  55. I’d say 90% chance the nominee is female (war on women, abortion, etc).

    60% chance she’s Hispanic (Rubio will have to either give up his alleged gains with them or give up his shot at the nomination), 30% she’s black, 20% she’s Muslim, 15% she’s Asian, 15% she’s white (Jewish or a Kennedy), 2% she’s American Indian (adds up to over 100% because Hispanic and Muslim aren’t races).

    Will have some of the following qualities:

    * Allegedly moderate and/or allegedly-unknowable ideology
    * From a swing state
    * #1 super-valedictorian and most qualified nominee of all time ever
    * Veteran
    * Rape victim
    * Had received support of many currently serving Republican senators (particularly Cruz/Rubio) for original nomination

    No chance the nominee would be a gay man or a trans person during a presidential election year, and a very low chance of it being a lesbian – still too much of an electoral liability.

    I do give her a chance of being a Muslim, only because, with Trump, it’ll be a good way of bringing out the white liberal base – they have the chance to Make History, just like the civil rights marchers did at Selma!

  56. How about a White Protestant…..

    A White Protestant who’s neither a de facto Likudnik nor a de facto Fabian socialist? You’d have to find one of those rare ones who exist between the mega-church rapture bunnies on the one hand and the one-worlders on the other.

    • Replies:
  57. IMO, Akhil Reed Amar would be the best choice – both politically and on the merits. He’s a well respected legal scholar, whose books on the Constitution have won wide renown. He’s 57, young enough to nominate, and doesn’t seem to have had any serious health issues. A quick Google search doesn’t turn up anything so controversial that it would disqualify him. He isn’t generally considered a political hack; his support for the Second Amendment may help to mollify some conservative fears about him. At the same time, he’s well within the mainstream liberal political consensus, so the Democratic coalition wouldn’t see him as a sellout or a betrayal by any means. Those who care about such things might like the idea of appointing the first Indian-American SCOTUS justice.

    Some have called Amar a “liberal originalist”, which would seem to make him the ideal candidate for Obama to nominate to fill Scalia’s seat. He could be diplomatic about it and respectful to Scalia’s legacy while still meeting Democratic political needs and desires.

  58. Damn. RIP Scalia.

    Larry Tribe may be 74, but I bet he could do a lot of damage before he goes. Do you trust that face? And with a name like that, we can’t say we weren’t warned.

    Stephen Breyer’s protege. Look for a guy with a name like that to make an “unexpected” turn to the left, post-confirmation. Deception as a way of life is a South, Southwest Asian forte. He’s 57, so look forward to 20 to 30 years of production from him if he’s confirmed. They say he’s top 20. So he’s top 50, maybe.

    Amar is the author of [...] America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By.

    Interesting title.

    his work in over twenty cases, including the landmark 1998 decision in Clinton v. City of New York, which ruled the presidential line-item veto unconstitutional

    Sounds like a good decision (amounted to un-Constitutional rewriting of laws), but doesn’t say much about his role.

    In their book For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights, Amar and Alan Hirsch introduce a variation on the four boxes of liberty theme often quoted by conservatives opposed to gun control. Discussing the American Constitution, they assert that the ideal of citizenship generates four “boxes” of rights. The first three are the ballot box, jury box and cartridge box. To these, with some reservations, they add the lunch box: the idea of a social safety net that supports basic physical and educational needs.

    Tent, meet Camel’s Nose.

    Amar was a consultant to the television show The West Wing, on which the character Josh Lyman refers to him in an episode in Season Five. His course on constitutional law is one of the most popular undergraduate offerings at Yale College.

    Flush him.

    Vaughn Richard Walker (born 1944) served as a district judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California from 1989 to 2011. Walker presided over the original trial in Hollingsworth v. Perry, where he found California’s Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional.

    He’s homosexual, 72, and a RINO libertarian who loves oligarchs.

    Stephen Carter is half black. Oy Vey. Please just nominate a real black guy, not a light-skinned, half-white black guy. Please? Why appoint only half a black guy to the supreme court?

    Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby. New York: Basic Books, 1991 ISBN 0-465-06871-5.
    The Culture of Disbelief. New York: Anchor, 1991 ISBN 0-385-47498-9. Received the 1994 University of Louisville and Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Grawemeyer Award in Religion.[6]
    The Confirmation Mess: Cleaning Up the Federal Appointments Process. New York: Basic Books, 1994 ISBN 0-465-01364-3.
    Integrity. New York: Harper Perennial, 1997 ISBN 0-06-092807-7. This book regards the current state of public integrity and its philosophical underpinnings.
    The Dissent of the Governed: A Meditation on Law, Religion, and Loyalty, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998 ISBN 0-674-21265-7.
    Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy. New York: Harper Perennial, (1999) ISBN 0-06-097759-0.
    God’s Name in Vain: The Wrongs and Rights of Religion in Politics. New York: Basic Books, 2001 ISBN 0-465-00887-9.
    The Violence of Peace: America’s Wars in the Age of Obama (2011)

    Nicely bland set of titles. Christo-Leftist. He’s 61, so we’ll see 20-30 years of jurisprudence out of this one, too.

    Richard Thompson Ford doesn’t seem to have a Wikipedia page, and doesn’t appear on Wikipedia’s disambiguation page for Richard Ford. CIA Cover. :|

    Eric Holder would be a wicked clever nomination. The Republicans would never be able to stop his confirmation. I shure hope Barry doesn’t nominate him.

  59. Personally, I was hoping for a Beyatce nomination. Isn’t it time for us to put a proud black woman on the court? But one who’s not too proud to slap on a blonde wig and shake her cootchie for the white man’s dollar. She’s an inspiration to all of us.

  60. But it’s always true that black turnout is important for Dems.

    For the establishment of both parties, I think it is in their interests to have the nomination delayed until after the primaries because if the Republicans don’t rabidly oppose any liberal candidate put forward during the primaries, Trump will benefit. So maybe we can expect to wait to see if Trump holds his lead before the nominee is announced.

    I’m still thinking #9 above is a good bet. Obama can’t nominate the first black or woman, but he can nominate the first gay.

    • Replies:
  61. I think it doesn’t matter whom Obama nominates, since the Republicans in the Senate will hold up the nomination until the session expires at the end of the year, which means the nomination will die. Assuming the Republicans retain control of the Senate (which appears likely), the thing to worry about is a recess appointment by Obama after the new year when he will have a small window to do so before he leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017, but, even if he does that, it will only last for one year. But if he nominates Hillary Clinton, it will create a field day for the Republicans to explore the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton emails, which Republicans will drag out to the end of the year, so I don’t think it will happen. The same analysis negates the nomination of Holder and even Lynch. I think Obama will try to nominate someone with experience as a judge without a radical record to prevent the Republicans from making political hay in the coming campaign for President.

    • Replies: ,
  62. Here in the alt-righosphere we may be disappointed with this Republucan Congress, but one thing they are good for is preventing anyone really bad from getting onto the Court.

    • Replies:
  63. Aren’t corporations people now under US law? Maybe a corporation could be named to the Supreme Court?

  64. I would have a list of potential picks ready to go if I were pres-o-dent. So surely he does as well. Is the list a well-kept secret? Should it be secret at all?

  65. Steve you are forgetting the politics involved with Cruz and Rubio both Senators. ANY nominee by Obama will be considered rightly an anti-White male, anti-Christian, anti-Gun, anti-American lunatic, and both Trump and Cruz will pound that theme of Senate Republican betrayal again and again.

    Leaving Boy Rubio no choice but to oppose ANY nominee, particularly with respect to Gun Rights. Think Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Ted Cruz want to explain to South Carolina White voters why they approve of Obama’s gay-Muslim nominee?

    Indeed they can likely tie any nominee to not only Gun Confiscation (a top priority for Obama — though only for Whites) but also Black Reparations. Every White person pays a tax to Cam Newton and Beyonce. Not to mention Obama and Michelle.

    As much as the GOPe cuckservatives love Obama, the base hates him and rightly. Any move to confirm ANY Obama appointee would mean “Presidential nominee Donald Trump” in a landslide. Even El Jebe! respects and fears the power of the NRA, and they will likely oppose any nominee by Obama on the sensible assumption that any Obama nominee will be rabidly anti Whites owning Guns (as opposed to Black felons which of course is OK because racism).

    Yeah the Media will have a field day but Obama’s track record of stopping Muslim attacks is well, nil, so people want their guns. Obama’s record of stopping Black crime is also nil, so people want their guns.

    Obama *MIGHT* just make an appointment and call it permanent, and use his thus-majority to do all sorts of things. It is just the sort of stupid thing he’d do.

  66. Just come up with your worst-case, most absurd scenario.

    Are you thinking what I’m thinking?


    • Agree: Seth
    • Replies:
  67. Don’t think Obama would be interested. He’s too stupid and lazy and narcicisstic.

    Don’t sugar-coat it Otto, tell us what you really think.

    John Tanker: pinky up, there’s a lad.

    Confirming a justice now would be a sign of strength for Obama, which draws voters. Obama’s passage of Obamacare made him look like a winner and helped him get elected in 2012.

    Interesting idea.

    Has it occurred to him that a Republican president (especially Trump) would make a much better foil for his post-presidency than any Democrat? I’m sure he already knows conflict makes better drama. And, who’s his main rival going to be in the future? Hillary, maybe? On the other hand, if she wins, she’s boss for 4 years, and word is she holds a grudge.

    This is a prime opportunity for Obama to stoke the base, so my money is on a highly divisive minority (probably black woman) choice that he counts on the GOP stalling, thereby winding up black voters for Hillary and possibly resurrecting the War on Women meme.

    I guess it comes down to who Hussein loves more: himself, or the party. Who can he nominate to give the Hillary the least help in the election (like he’s been doing all along), while keeping his Dem cred?

    Obama may try to appoint a “business friendly” “moderate” democrat. That means the moneybags wing of the GOP gets to keep all the anti-middle class, anti-privacy, pro-bank, pro-pollution rulings, and on top of that get LEGAL access to the current 11 million illegals, who could all get work permits, plus millions more new illegals who will be happy to take the empty dishwashing/landscaping/nanny jobs that don’t ask for papers.

    I’ll go with you on this one, Lot. Somebody inoffensive to the plutocrats and the Dems, whose nomination process is unlikely to help Hillary.

    Why nominate anyone? Then it will become a campaign issue.

    This might be the safest play. Delay as long as possible. Make a big deal about how an important decision like this shouldn’t be rushed.

  68. I agree. I was encouraged by the fact that Mitch McConnell came out quickly with his announcement calling for delay until the next President assumes office. And the candidates all seemed to be calling for delay. So the Republicans seem to be unified on this issue at least.

  69. How about a White Protestant…..

    A White Protestant who’s neither a de facto Likudnik nor a de facto Fabian socialist? You’d have to find one of those rare ones who exist between the mega-church rapture bunnies on the one hand and the one-worlders on the other.

    I don’t think 75% of 140 million produces a number a number small enough to be considered rare.

    • Replies:
  70. You know, i keep forgetting which hole the feeding tube goes in. Could you check yours and tell me?

  71. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Obama is a Panther. He’ll go hardcore.


    0. Himself
    1. Reverend Wright
    2. Al Sharpton
    3. Kanye West
    4. Reggie Love
    5. Axelrod
    6. Someone named Pritzker
    7. Someone named Soros
    8. Valerie Jarrett

    • Replies: ,
  72. Hussein has thought hard about Emailgate. Deciding if he wants her to be president or not. He’s letting the FBI work, but the decision to prosecute is ultimately his. The FBI has suggested that they’ll blow their stacks if they build a solid criminal case against Hillary and he sits on it.

    Will he destroy her, if he can?

    1. He wants to start his own organization to rival the Clinton Foundation. Every dollar they get is a dollar he won’t. It’d be wonderful if they retired.
    2. A Trump or Cruz presidency would be a great environment for the Hussein Foundation’s revenue.

    1. It’s usually better to have your team in charge.
    2. He could wind up shooting at and missing the future Queen.

    No prosecution and little FBI protest means no smoke and no fire. No prosecution and strong FBI protest means Hussein wants Hillary to win. Prosecution means he wants her to lose.

    Hussein might green light a strong case against Hillary.

  73. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    the thing to worry about is a recess appointment

    A recess appointment might not be a bad thing.

    It lets the next president choose the nominee, which is the major objective. At most a recess appointment could do a year’s damage.

    And there are reasons the recess appointment might not do too much harm, and he/she would be on probation hoping to be the permanent replacement so might not act recklessly. It would also be a chance to test drive the recess appointment. And, if appointed in the middle of the term could be prevented from voting on cases that have already been argued. (It is more complicated than that because the court can choose to re-hear a case, or the court might just punt problematic cases to the following year rather than re-hear them.)

    • Replies:
  74. Yeah it’s all about numbers: IQ test scores and percentages of the population. I refer to the corrupted and degraded state of modern Protestantism and you come back with numbers. Everything’s always a hardware problem with you HBD types, never a software problem. Maybe someone can have his DNA, IQ and WASP certification and still be a moral and cultural cretin and a political enemy? Aren’t such people now legion in your country and mine? Let’s face it, someone a simply being White Protestant is no indication of quality.

    • Replies:
  75. How about a White Protestant…..

    Kennedy and Sotomayor are more “protestant” than Luther or Calvin ever was.

    • Replies:
  76. Or Obama can do what he’s done in other constitutional decisions he’s made – declare Congress is recalcitrant and, as president, he simply appoints the person he so desires. Simple. As in other past instances, Congress will not seriously dispute his action – make a few ‘pouty’ remarks and let the situation ride.

    IOW, Obama simply has to be Obama, that’s all. And everyone else plays his part.

    • Replies:
  77. Louis Farrakhan would be fun too. We seem to be living in a brand new era of real life trolling and it would be tough to top the appointment of Louis Farrakhan to the Supreme Court for IRL trolling.

  78. If he wants to destroy Clinton and help the Republicans win the presidency, he should wait and see if she looks likely to be nominated. If he wants to destroy her and have a Democrat president, he should try to get the damage done ASAP, before the nomination ball really gets rolling. Of course it’s possible that he’s too loyal to the Democrats, or too afraid of the political fallout, to do either.

  79. No one has mentioned the most obvious pick: Cass Sunstein, Obama’s buddy from the University of Chicago Law School, who served as his regulation czar. He’s the most frequently cited legal scholar in the U.S., a “judicial minimalist,” who takes enough centrist positions to make him plausible as a nominee. Like Obama, he is a creepy neoliberal Wall Street Democrat. His most creepy performance is a coauthored article on clandestine government subversion of those whom he considers conspiracy theorists. Wikipedia:

    The authors declare that there are five hypothetical responses a government can take toward conspiracy theories: “We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.” However, the authors advocate that each “instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).”

    Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting “nongovernmental officials”; they suggest that “government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes,” further warning that “too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed.”[35] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, “might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts.” This position has been criticized by some commentators[36][37] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[38] Sunstein and Vermeule’s proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.[39][40][41][42]

    It’s so notorious that there is an 11-video playlist on youtube of people angrily confronting him about his views. He often responds that he doesn’t remember that he wrote that article!

    Bonus: he’s married to butcher-of-Syria Samantha Power. More than once I’ve imagined Cass, Samantha, Barack, and Michelle at a cozy family dinner in the White House, cackling about how great it is that ISIS is beheading the Christian men in Syria and turning the women into their sex slaves; and woohooing about how how wildly successful their clandestine cognitive infiltration ops have been against Americans and their national interest. Which makes me a conspiracy theorist, so I might as well point something out.

    He’s white by yesterday’s definitions, but maybe not by today’s.

    • Replies: ,
  80. How about a White Protestant…..

    Kennedy and Sotomayor are more “protestant” than Luther or Calvin ever was.

    Dunno; I just wouldn’t mind seeing a White Protestant get appointed to the Supreme Court before I die….

    • Replies: ,
  81. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Agreed, if he’s looking for a confirmable nominee rather than stirring the presidential election pot.

    Klobuchar is ambitious, which is why she avoids anything remotely controversial. She was briefly mentioned as a presidential possibility but seems to have let that pass for now. However, as it gets harder for senators to win presidential nominations the longer they serve in the Senate and she’s already in her second term and would be in her third when the 2020 election rolls around (unless she runs for and wins Minnesota’s gubernatorial election in 2018 instead), I suspect she’d now take a Supreme Court Justice nomination if offered. It’s a more prestigious life accomplishment than US Senate. Or small state governor.

    • Replies: , ,
  82. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Alan Grayson.

    1) He’s got the law degree, and he’s practiced law.

    2) Harry Reid wants him kicked out of Congress.

    3) He can be the first Supreme Court Justice to moonlight as a hedge fund manager. Obama will figure this ‘pro-capitalist’ stance will get him past any Republicans objection, and since Obama himself is a corporate Democrat (he’s learned to love that money), he’ll appeal to Obama, too.

    • Replies:
  83. It’s hilarious that Trump is now being booed on television by the Republican donor class that buys high-priced tickets to conventions, even as his message has him way ahead in the polls, on a groundswell of new voters. And this after all the years of talk about how the Republicans have to draw in new voters. The Republican donor class would much rather lose on the Amnesty/Oligarch platform than win with the Sailer Strategy. Republicans only seem to want new voters if they’re not white.

    Boo away, donor class. Make it all as apparent to the voters as possible.

    • Replies:
  84. If Obama accepts that whoeve he nominates may not be confirmed, but wants to deliver the President to the Democrats…..

    … He should nominate Trump’s sister.

    Republicans would shoot each other if that happened.

  85. From

    Following is a list of individuals who have been mentioned in various news accounts as the most likely potential nominees for a Supreme Court appointment under Obama:
    United States Courts of Appeals

    Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit
    David Barron (born 1967) [46][47]
    Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
    Sonia Sotomayor (born 1954)[1] (nominated and confirmed)
    Robert Katzmann (born 1953)[48]
    Denny Chin (born 1954)[49]
    Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
    Joseph Greenaway (born 1957)[50]
    Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
    Ann Claire Williams (born 1949)[51][52]
    Diane Pamela Wood (born 1950)[5][7][8][17][27][28][30][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]
    Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
    Jane Louise Kelly (born 1964)[47][74]
    Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
    Michelle Friedland (born 1972)[citation needed]
    M. Margaret McKeown (born 1951)[75][76]
    Mary H. Murguia (born 1960)[77]
    Jacqueline Nguyen (born 1965)[77]
    Johnnie B. Rawlinson (born 1952)[78][79]
    Sidney Runyan Thomas (born 1953)[41][42][80][81]
    Kim McLane Wardlaw (born 1954)[17][21][28][78][82][83]
    Paul J. Watford (born 1967)[47][74][84]
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Merrick Garland (born 1952)[7][17][54][57][59][82][85][86]
    Sri Srinivasan (born 1967)[47][86][87]
    Nina Pillard (born 1961)
    Patricia Ann Millett (born 1963)[47]
    United States District Courts[edit]
    Christine Arguello (born 1955) – District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado[79][88]
    Ruben Castillo (born 1954) – District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois[21][57]
    Alison J. Nathan (born 1972) – District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York[74]
    State Supreme Courts[edit]
    Sheila Abdus-Salaam – Associate Judge, New York Court of Appeals[citation needed]
    Bernette Joshua Johnson – Chief Justice, Louisiana Supreme Court[89]
    Goodwin Liu (born 1970) – Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California[74][90]
    Carlos R. Moreno (born 1948) – United States Ambassador to Belize, former Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California; former Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California[31][83]
    Stuart Rabner (born 1960) – Chief Justice, New Jersey Supreme Court; former New Jersey Attorney General[48]
    Leah Ward Sears (born 1955) – Former Chief Justice, Georgia Supreme Court[28][57][78][91]
    Patricia Timmons-Goodson (born 1954) – Former Associate Justice, North Carolina Supreme Court[89]
    Executive Branch[edit]
    Beth Brinkmann (born 1958) – Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice; former Partner with Morrison & Foerster[92]
    Hillary Rodham Clinton (born 1947) – Former Secretary of State; former Senator from New York, First Lady and Chair of the Legal Services Corporation[18][20][54][56][93]
    James Comey (born 1960): Director of the FBI; former Deputy Attorney General[94]
    Larry Echo Hawk (born 1948) – Former Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs; former Idaho Attorney General[95]
    Eric Holder (born 1951) – Former United States Attorney General[96]
    Elena Kagan (born 1960) – Solicitor General; former Dean of Harvard Law School[7][8][17][18][20][27][28][30][51][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][78][93][97] (nominated and confirmed)
    Harold Hongju Koh (born 1954) – Former Legal Adviser of the Department of State; former Dean of Yale Law School[7][35][51][55][57][78][82]
    Janet Napolitano (born 1957) – Former Secretary of Homeland Security; former Governor of Arizona; former Arizona Attorney General; former United States Attorney;[35][98] President of University of California
    Kathryn Ruemmler (born 1971) – Former White House Counsel; former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General[99][100]
    Ken Salazar (born 1955) – Former Secretary of the Interior; former Senator from Colorado; former Colorado Attorney General[21][101]
    Virginia A. Seitz (born 1956) – Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice[77]
    Cass Sunstein (born 1954) – Former Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs[7][51][54][55][57][82]
    Thomas Perez (born 1961) – United States Secretary of Labor[102]
    Neal Katyal (born 1970) – Former Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States[74]
    United States Senators[edit]
    Amy Klobuchar (born 1960) – Senator from Minnesota; former County Attorney for Hennepin County, Minnesota.[103][104]
    Claire McCaskill (born 1953) – Senator from Missouri; former State Auditor of Missouri; former County Prosecutor for Jackson County, Missouri; former member of the Missouri House of Representatives[103][104]
    Elizabeth Warren (born 1949) – United States Senator, Massachusetts; Professor, Harvard Law School; chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel[80]
    Sheldon Whitehouse (born 1955) – Senator from Rhode Island; former United States Attorney for Rhode Island; former Rhode Island State Attorney General[105]
    United States Governors[edit]
    Jennifer Granholm (born 1959) – Former Governor of Michigan; former Michigan Attorney General; former Assistant United States Attorney[20][28][57][58][98][103]
    Deval Patrick (born 1956) – Former Governor of Massachusetts; former Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division[7][55][57][74][82][97][98][106]
    State Executive Branches[edit]
    Kamala Harris (born 1964) – California Attorney General[74][107]
    Lisa Madigan (born 1966) – Illinois Attorney General[77]
    Supreme Court litigators[edit]
    Caitlin Halligan (born 1966) – Former judicial nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Solicitor General of New York[77][89]
    Seth P. Waxman (born 1951) – Partner with WilmerHale; former Solicitor General[17][56][85]
    Paul M. Smith (born 1955) – Partner with Jenner & Block; argued and won landmark case Lawrence v. Texas[74]
    Nora Demleitner (born 1966) – Professor and former dean at Washington and Lee University School of Law, formerly Dean of Hofstra University School of Law[89]
    JoAnne Epps – Professor and dean, Temple University Beasley School of Law[89]
    Pamela S. Karlan (born 1959) – Professor, Stanford Law School[35][58][74][108]
    Martha Minow (born 1954) – Professor and dean, Harvard Law School[80]
    Kathleen Sullivan (born 1955) – Professor and former dean, Stanford Law School; partner with Quinn Emanuel.[8][28][35][51][56][78][82]

  86. Bad example. 4 of the 7 are Republican appointees.

    • Replies:
  87. Wowie!

    If Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination, the Republican party as we know it is over.

    In tonight’s debate, Trump blamed George W. Bush for 9/11 happening on his watch and confirmed that he would have impeached him for invading Iraq. Polls show that both George W. Bush and the Iraq war are still very popular with Republicans. But if everything we’ve seen over the last nine months holds, it seems likely that Trump will get 30% of the vote in South Carolina no matter what he says.

    Is everyone here making sure their right-thinking but politically disengaged friends and relatives know when, where and how to vote?

    That if they moved in the past year or two, they need to re-register at their new address?

    That they have current photo id (in some states)?

    That if they forget to re-register, they can vote at their old location?

    That they should never be turned away if they are not on the local list, but instead should fill out a provisional ballot?

    If you can’t afford to donate to Donald, remember that each primary vote can be worth $100 or more of campaign spending. Get ten people to turn out, and you have more influence over the process than a $1,000 donor to Marco Rubio.

  88. Bader Ginsburg, Douglas, Brennan and Marshall have all shown some smart law clerks helping to justify your awful decision can keep you out and about. There are some beautiful golf courses The One has yet to visit with Body Man Reggie Love. Obama hasn’t let actual work get in the way of any of that so far anyway.

  89. “Btw, he is White.”

    You need an eye exam.

  90. Democrats will never nominate another man as long as they’re the majority on the SC. Once there’s at least 5 women on it, then men have a chance of a Dem nomination.
    Take a look at the CA Supreme Court:

    No white men allowed. This is what they envision for the SC.

    Current California Supreme Court Justices:

    Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye is the 28th chief justice of the State of California. She was sworn into office on January 3, 2011, and is the first Asian-Filipina American and the second woman to serve as the state’s chief justice.

    The Honorable Kathryn M. Werdegar (white woman) was appointed to the California Supreme Court by Governor Pete Wilson on May 3, 1994. In November 2002, she was re-elected to a new term of office which began on January 7, 2003.

    The Honorable Ming W. Chin was appointed to the California Supreme Court by Governor Pete Wilson on January 25, 1996. On March 1, he was confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments and sworn in by the Governor.

    The Honorable Carol A. Corrigan (white woman) was appointed to the California Supreme Court in December 2005; confirmed January 4, 2006.

    The Honorable Goodwin H. Liu was appointed to the California Supreme Court in August 2011. He was confirmed on August 31 and sworn in by the Governor on Sept. 1, 2011.

    The Honorable Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar was nominated to the California Supreme Court in July 2014, confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on August 28, 2014, and retained by the electorate in the November 2014 general election. He was sworn in by the Governor on January 5, 2015.

    The Honorable Leondra R. Kruger (black woman) was appointed to the California Supreme Court in November 2014, confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on December 22, 2014, and sworn in by the Governor on January 5, 2015.

    • Replies:
  91. Does a US Supreme Court justice have to be a lawyer?

    Answer by Mitchwhite

    The technical answer is no, there are no Constitutional or legislative qualifications for US Supreme Court justices.

    All 112 past and present Supreme Court justices have been lawyers, although those who served in the early days of the Court learned the law by reading and apprenticing with more experienced attorneys because there were few law schools back then.

    There have been some lawyers who were never judges appointed, most famously, Earl Warren. Eisenhower appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1953 to thank him for his support in CA during the Republican primaries. Warren was an ex-state Attorney General and an extremely popular governor of CA, but he had never been a judge. He went on to become one of the most active Chief Justices ever, greatly expanding legal protections, especially for minorities (e.g. Brown v. Board of Education, 1954) and criminal defendants (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966).

    So yes. Obama could appoint someone like
    1. Reverend Wright
    2. Al Sharpton
    3. Kanye West
    4. Reggie Love etc etc

    Me, I’m pulling for Reggie Love to get it, to loyally uphold the Obama agenda in future SC decisions


    I always figured there would be some kind of interesting story behind Ah-nold appointing this Filipino lady as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. She’s kind of a Harriet Miers-type, not a superstar. It was pretty much the last thing he did as governor, and there’s usually an interesting story behind things Schwarzenegger does. But it never seems to come up, so I don’t what the story is.

    • Replies: , ,
  93. When he leaves office Obama will copy the Clintoons by setting up an Obama Foundation. Thus I predict Obama will exploit this Supreme Court appointment to showcase his UN style diversity chops by appointing an Asian. There are plenty of Indian drones working their way up the ranks of our judiciary. Fewer Chinese but they are there. Of course we have many other Asians in America. So be it male, female, LGBT or what have you, I predict an Asian. With the added bonus that Republican Senator chickenshits will be afraid not to expedite such a choice due to fear of alienating masses of Asian voters somewhere out in 2050.

  94. The proper globalist candidate should be Amal Clooney.

    The Republican opposition would be sexist, racist, xenophobic, and just plain mean. Checkmate.

  95. I hope it isn’t Cass Sunnstein.

    The Republicans should stonewall any and every nominee that Obama sends up. Drag each one out, bury it in committee, then vote them down. They should just tell the Democrats: This is for Bork. Screw you. You’ll get nothing, and you’ll like it.

    Not that I expect them to do that.

  96. Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye. You gotta love the two last names. Every second professional black woman has two last names. I liken this to the old fad of wearing neutral eyeglasses so you look more intelligent.

  97. I’ll steal that idea.

  98. It’s either Prof. Jeannie C. Suk, cuz she es muy caliente…….

    Es verdad! She is my new top contender due to being Asian, female, super-cute! No lecherous ol stale, pale, male Republican Senator will dare delay her ascension.

    And what not to love about her last four specialties:
    - Sexuality and the Law
    - Gender and the Law: Sexual Assault
    - Gender and the Law: Title IX
    - Gender and the Law: Feminist Legal Theory

  99. We had a Tiger Woodish (minus the black) exotic on the state Supreme Court for a while:

    Joyce L. Kennard

    Kennard was born in the city of Bandung in the Indonesian province of West Java. Both of her parents were of mixed Eurasian ancestry. Her father, Johan, was of Dutch, Indonesian and German ancestry, while her mother, Wilhemine, was mostly of Chinese Indonesian ancestry as well as Dutch and Belgian ancestry.[1] Kennard speaks English with a distinct Dutch accent. Her father died in a Japanese concentration camp when she was one year old.[2]

    Kennard and her mother moved to the Netherlands in 1955.[1] The rigidity of the Dutch educational system meant that Kennard’s hopes of attending university were derailed when she contracted a tumor on her right leg, which resulted in the amputation of part of that limb at age 16.[1] She now walks with the help of a prosthesis.

    In 1961, she was able to immigrate to the United States as a result of a special law that authorized 15,000 additional visas for Dutch Indonesian refugees; she settled in Los Angeles and found her first U.S. job as a secretary for Occidental Life Insurance.[1] Wilhemine (who was stuck in a menial restaurant job) stayed behind so that her daughter would always have a home base, but died of lung cancer in 1968.[1]

    Wilhemine’s last gift to her daughter was a bequest of $5,000 she had carefully saved up over the years.[1] This money, on top of Kennard’s own savings (and additional income from continuing to work part-time while in school), enabled Kennard to finally pursue her long-deferred dream of going to college. In 1970, she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts magna cum laude in German from the University of Southern California, where she would go on to graduate in 1974 with a Master of Public Administration and a Juris Doctor from the USC Gould School of Law.


  100. You modestly omitted to mention his single greatest qualification.

  101. I’m kind of surprised that people here even gave a moment’s thought to possible candidates, and that it took so long for someone to mention the obvious: over the GOP’s collective corpse would they confirm an Obama nominee. If Obama were somehow capable of nominating a conservative in his 70s, that might be a compromise. But he’s not, and the left would go beserkers if he did.

    I can’t imagine any judge with a decent career accepting a year as Obama’s stalking horse, which suggests that if he does nominate someone, it will be a fringe candidate.

    I’m sorry Scalia’s left us, since I liked him quite a bit. But I’m a teacher who thinks Friedrichs is a terrible case, and an immigration restrictionist. So the idea of a 4-4 court is, er, not displeasing.

    I am actually pretty impressed with the suggestion of not nominating anyone. Force the court to do something other than tie, time and again, or it goes back to the lower court.

  102. Dirk Dagger [AKA "Chico Caldera"]
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    SCROTUS … Which is singular, by the way.

    That’s a shame homes, that had ta hurt, but ten coraje amiga I hear that Adolpho Schicklgruber only had one and he still made a rep for hisself.

  103. some kind of interesting story

    So the all-too-usual happens — the establishment shits on white men to keep the hounds at bay — and you think there must be “some kind of interesting story” behind it — other than the aforementioned obvious “story”– considering that you opine not infrequently about Occam’s razor, butterknife, whatever, yes, that is “interesting”.

  104. You do realize he’s trolling you people with that article, no?

  105. The composition of the Supeme Court may become even more critical very quickly if it rules on the constitutionality of a Ted Cruz presidency–is he a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution? The four “liberal” justices will rule against a Republican, no matter what the issue. Now that there are only four “not-always-liberal” justices, the possibility that the Supreme Court may rule a President “unconstitutional” becomes much more likely.

    • Replies:
  106. One thing we’ve learned from this cycle is that the press can be dealt with you just need people that know how to render them irrelevant.

  107. That’s pretty inspirational actually

  108. The best and most terrifying strategy would be #4. Obama probably wouldn’t even want the job, and it would delay his huge payday which is going to make even the Clinton Foundation look small-time. But he’s got nothing to lose.

    He could always resign after just a few years, let Hillary appoint a liberal replacement, and then cash in.

    And if he doesn’t get it, then he can finally claim his own instance of being a victim of discrimination until his dying days and spin it in a way that asserts that a black man can’t get a fair shake from those evil white racist Republicans even if he’s an ex-President!

  109. Senator Klobuchar gave a speech at a function that I attended. It was so bad that I was kind of embarrassed for her.

  110. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Ronald Chen, dean of Rutgers Law School, is extraordinarly bright, Asian, liberal, and rumored gay.

    Ronald K. Chen
    Dean, Distinguished Professor of Law, and Judge Leonard I. Garth Scholar

    Ronald Chen became Acting Dean of the Law School on April 11, 2013, when Dean Farmer began a leave of absence to serve as Senior Vice President and University Counsel. He was appointed permanent Dean in April 2015.

    Dean Chen returned to the law school in January 2010 after serving for four years as the first Public Advocate of New Jersey in 13 years when the Department of the Public Advocate was restored in 2006. As a member of Governor Corzine’s Cabinet, he was charged with providing advocacy for a number of specific constituencies, including elder citizens, persons with disabilities, mental health services’ consumers, and ratepayers, and was generally given standing to represent the public interest in legal proceedings. His areas of focus included eminent domain reform, voters’ rights, affordable housing, childhood lead poisoning prevention, deinstitutionalization of persons with developmental disabilities and mental health services’ consumers, and affordable energy for ratepayers. As Public Advocate, he was named chair of the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on Immigrant Policy, which was charged with making recommendations on how state government can best assist immigrants to integrate into the New Jersey community.

    Prior to becoming the Public Advocate, Dean Chen was the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the law school, with responsibility for overall academic and curricular operations and policy. He has also served as Acting Director of the Minority Student Program. Through all these jobs, he maintained a busy schedule as a law professor, teaching Contracts, Federal Courts, Mass Media Law and Church-State Relations. In addition, Dean Chen has appeared numerous times in state and federal court litigating civil rights, civil liberties and constitutional law cases. He currently continues this work through the Constitutional Rights Clinic.

    Dean Chen is an active lay leader of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He first served as a trustee on the New Jersey affiliate board from 1989 to 2002, and then was elected to ACLU’s national board. In 2002, he was elected by the national board to serve on the National Executive Committee. After completing his term as Public Advocate, he has been re-elected to the ACLU National Board and New Jersey affiliate board, and currently serves on the ACLU-NJ Legal Committee and the ACLU National Board Executive Committee.

    Dean Chen earned a bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College in 1980 and graduated from Rutgers School of Law–Newark with high honors in 1983, where he was editor-in-chief of the Rutgers Law Review and the Saul Tischler Scholar. He served as law clerk to the Honorable Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and then practiced with a large New York City firm until 1987 when he returned to the law school as a member of the faculty.

    He currently serves as Vice-Chair of the New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, as a member of the New Jersey Law Journal editorial board, and as the Dean’s representative on the NJ Commission on Professionalism. He chaired the New Jersey State Bar Association Committee on Legal Education from 2003-2006, and chaired the Third Circuit Lawyers Advisory Committee from 2002-2003.

    He was named the New Jersey Law Journal’s “Lawyer of the Year” for 2007, in large part because of his work in using state constitutional principles to prevent eminent domain abuse. Among the other awards he has received are the Fannie Bear Besser Award for public service given by the Rutgers School of Law–Newark Alumni Association, the 2007 Mel Narol Excellence in Diversity Award given by the New Jersey State Bar Association, the 2002 Roger Baldwin Award bestowed by ACLU-NJ for contributions to civil liberties, and the 2001 Outstanding Achievement Award bestowed by the Association of Asian and Pacific American Lawyers Association of New Jersey.</bloc

  111. Hey, I’ve got it! How about Mark Kirk for SCOTUS?



    Heterosexual (presumably)

    Veteran (ex-Navy officer)

    but there’s one problem: He is considered the most liberal Republican in the Senate, and his policies got an “F” from Conservative review;

    I’d love to see Barry make all of these limp-dicks look stupid (once again) in negating a white, male, 60+ year old veteran over policy disagreement – or, conversely, look helpless by going back on their word during a presidential campaign, and going along with the POTUS, or, they could just negate him, look helpless, and take their chances on watching Hillary nominate a dyke from San Francisco next year!

    Now tell me that wouldn’t be fun!

    • Replies:
  112. What is it about the mourning process that turns so many commenters into unfunny comedians?

  113. You guys are neglecting the best possible pick of a current federal judge if Obama’s main goal is to create havoc in the GOP and aid his own party:

    Maryanne Trump Barry

    • Replies:
  114. Dunno; I just wouldn’t mind seeing a White Protestant get appointed to the Supreme Court before I die….

    Then Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire and the ECUSA is your man. And Obama’s.

    (Or is it PECUSA?)

  115. Klobuchar is ambitious, which is why she avoids anything remotely controversial

    Her father’s newspaper columns were equally dishwater as well.

  116. Condoleeza Rice would really shake things up.

  117. This is the dude who wrote that article about how bowling leagues can lead to fascism. If he’s trolling, then its another sign of contempt for much of the population.

    The most radical thing Obama could do is nominate someone who ISN’T a Harvard/Yale grad. In terms of background, this is the least “diverse” court ever.

    • Replies:
  118. Yeah it’s all about numbers: IQ test scores and percentages of the population. I refer to the corrupted and degraded state of modern Protestantism and you come back with numbers. Everything’s always a hardware problem with you HBD types, never a software problem. Maybe someone can have his DNA, IQ and WASP certification and still be a moral and cultural cretin and a political enemy? Aren’t such people now legion in your country and mine? Let’s face it, someone a simply being White Protestant is no indication of quality.

    Wow, talk about an autistic response totally missing the point. The point is not your opinion about the alleged quality of White Protestants today; the point is that the founding population of this country, and the still largest ethnic/religious population of this country, is totally unrepresented on the Supreme Court, and also radically underrepresented in all of the elite institutions (what the Moldbugtards refer to as the Cathedral).

    Noticing the lack of White Protestants is not an argument that any random White Protestant put on the SC would be a good choice in your opinion: the point is to notice that the disappearance of the founding population from any kind of representation on the SC is not a random occurrence at all. It is a deliberate result of policy. Just as affirmative action is a deliberate policy to reduce white representation in elite schools, universities, corporations, and so on.

    There are plenty of White Protestants who are not Rapture Bunnies, who are not Israeli Firsters, who are not Globalists or Libtards or Leftists or whathaveyou. Numbers do matter: there are, even in our current degraded state, still tens of millions of sane, rational, conservative White Protestants, but they are being frozen out of any kinds of positions of authority and influence, in the schools, universities, corporations, law schools, courts, and other institutions that their ancestors created.

    The only person making the argument that simply being a White Protestant is any indication of quality, in and of itself, is you: it is your strawman argument. Yes, White Protestants are in a sad condition today, but Catholics and others are just as bad (YES THEY ARE), if not worse, and if you deny this you reveal your real agenda pretty starkly.

    If it were simply a matter of finding the best qualified, conservative candidate (or for the Dems, the best qualified liberal candidate – but then the Dems, unlike the GOP, openly admit that their choices are Affirmative Action choices, not meritocratic choices), there should have been, by odds, more than a few White Protestants on the Court. The fact that there are NONE suggests that the GOP isn’t exactly what it claims to be, either, but that shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention.

    • Replies:
  119. Very surprised that Holder wasn’t #1 among your possible examples, Steve. He’s such an obvious choice.

  120. Chico, the outrageousness of your posts suggests the compelling need for Donald Trump to add an extension of his “beautiful” wall in order to bar certain posters from posting on I can’t put my finger on it exactly, but something about your posts has the strong whiff of illegality about them.

    • Replies: ,
  121. “A recess appointment might not be a bad thing.

    It lets the next president choose the nominee, which is the major objective. At most a recess appointment could do a year’s damage.”

    I agree that a recess appointment would not be the worst thing to happen in this matter (since it would only last a year), but I fail to see how the Republicans would benefit in any way from such a recess appointment. I see no advantage of having a Democrat replace Scalia, even for a year, over leaving the Court left to operate with the present 8 Justices. (I think there is one major pending case where Elena Kagan has recused herself, leaving the pro forma division at 4-3.) The only situation where the Republicans might gain is where Obama might name a controversial nominee to the vacate post, which might provide the Republicans with political fodder in the upcoming Presidential campaign. If Obama nominates an ordinary, noncontroversial person to the Court and it is held up until the end of the session and dies, Obama is likely to exercise his recess appointment power, but that would happen in January 2017, long after the November election. That might have been a factor in Obama making his announcement last night.

    • Replies: ,
  122. And if the Supreme Court refuses entry to such an “appointment,” Obama can always call out the 101st Airborne to overpower those wimpy guards at the Supreme Court building.

  123. This is my interesting Game Theoretic choice to stir up the pot even more:

    Wait till mid or end March when Donald is fairly certain to be the front runner and then nominate Mrs. Barry. If Republicans oppose her, they may end up losing (even more) favor among women, piss off Donald. Remember, Donald loves Donald more than anything else; if he is “not treated well”, he will screw Republicans out of vengeance.

    Only problem is she is 78.

    • Replies:
  124. Pete Wilson and Arnold S……. (his name is too long)

    Liberal Republicans who cared nothing for their own voters and checked off all the diversity points. I still say look at the result: no white men welcome. This is what the liberals want, R or D.

    Also, look at European appointed positions. Women, women, women.

  125. A 4-4 tie would result in the affirmance of whatever the lower court decided. I doubt very much that a circuit court would rule against Cruz on that issue, so, even if the SC took up the case (which is unlikely), a tie would merely affirm the ruling below.

    • Replies:
  126. tbraton, Chico Caldera is the anchor baby of Steve posters.

    • Replies:
  127. Dying i n one’s sleep is usually a euphemism for something. Perhaps he vomited and choked, had a heart attack or cardiac arrhythmia, had a seizure and stopped breathing. Could be lots of things. We will never really know. Dying is rarely as pleasant and peaceful as obituary columns would have you believe.

    There was an interesting case a few years ago when a well-known international cricket coach called Bob Woolmer was found dead in his hotel room at the Pegasus Hotel in Jamaica. A local coroner decided that he had been murdered, possibly strangled, and the entire Pakistani cricket team was questioned about motives, movements on the night in question, etc.

    Eventually it came to pass that the original autopsy was a balls-up and he most likely died of natural causes., but there are still those who believe he may have fallen foul of organized crime betting syndicates and met a sticky end. A jury in Jamaica eventually passed an open verdict.

    You can bet that the autopsy on Scalia will never be made public, which will probably perpetuate conspiracy theories.

    • Replies: ,
  128. She is perfectly qualified but is only a year younger than the dearly departed Senior Justice.

  129. This is the best idea I’ve heard since the news broke.

  130. Just very depressing to be ruled by this garbage.

    We used to have something approaching a republic however imperfect.

  131. Keep an eye on Sri Srinivasan of the DC Circuit. He’d be a Breyer-style appointee ideologically but with bonus nonwhite “Asian” points.

    He’s gonna get nominated, plus for the DC Circuit, where he is now, he got unanimous Senate approval. So impossible to delay or deny this Indian born guy…Yes, we are outsourcing Supreme Court Justices these days.

  132. “Only problem is she is 78.”

    I don’t think that is the only problem, although I would note that 78 is just one year younger than 79, Scalia’s age when he died. She is also retired (“senior status”). Trump was asked this morning about appointing his sister to the SC. He laughed it off, pointing out that it would somehow constitute a “conflict of interest” and that it was unlikely anyway because of her liberal views. He mentioned another female judge as the kind of nominee he would select, a woman I assume of impeccable conservative views, in order to establish his conservative bona fides against Ted Cruz’s heated attacks against him. I got the impression that Trump would throw his sister under the bus, so there is little likelihood of Trump getting pissed off by the Republican Party’s rejection of her. I think Obama is smart enough to figure out that he couldn’t get much mileage out of nominating Trump’s sister.

  133. 12. Genius T. Coates

    Of course if he gets named to the Supreme Court the other eight judges can just go home.

  134. Instead of Hillary, how about Bernie?

    He has to know that he’ll never be president.

    Then Biden or someone else could swoop in and get support from both the Dem establishment and from the grass roots who hate Hillary.

  135. Ken Starr? Protestant, white male…hmmm?…could be the “Real Housemates of DC,” drama of the century.

  136. Wow, talk about an autistic response totally missing the point. The point is not your opinion about the alleged quality of White Protestants today…

    Boy is the word “autistic” abused on the web lately. Now you’re using it to mean someone not obsessed with numbers and data and who wants to talk about less quantifiable things. That’s not very “autistic”, even using the current layman’s definition.

    …the point is that the founding population of this country, and the still largest ethnic/religious population of this country, is totally unrepresented on the Supreme Court, and also radically underrepresented in all of the elite institutions….

    That’s your point, not mine. I was making my point and you can make yours. I’m pointing out the cultural and political degeneracy of huge swaths of North American Protestants and that is not in conflict with your key point about the under-representation of Protestants in your institutions. Perhaps Protestants are in such a low state in this one way because they’re in a low state in these others?

    Yes, White Protestants are in a sad condition today, but Catholics and others are just as bad (YES THEY ARE), if not worse, and if you deny this you reveal your real agenda pretty starkly.

    I should mention that I’m a Protestant myself, at least on paper. I’m probably not a very good one and probably wouldn’t be considered one by the type of Prods who share Leon Trotsky’s admiration for Oliver Cromwell or think the Reformation is a permanent revolution rather than an unfortunate misunderstanding.

  137. What, is Clock Boy’s dad too busy trying to seize power in Khartoum?

    How about Judge Reinhold, then? Someone we can all agree on.

  138. Thanks for reminding us of that article. I file it with Steve’s occasional commentary about European soccer fans. Nothing tingles the spidey-sense of the ruling class like the self-organizing capacity of the core.

  139. “tbraton, Chico Caldera is the anchor baby of Steve posters.”

    That’s funny. I guess we will have to make an exception in his case until The Donald becomes Prez. I hope Chico realizes that I was teasing. I think his posts are hilarious.

  140. While I tend to agree, if the plaintiffs could somehow get the case in the 9th Circuit (the circuit with the most decisions reversed) the Court of Appeals might rule Cruz’s election unconstitutional. Even the DC Circuit, where the case would most likely go, is now filled increasingly with Clinton and Obama appointees who are unfavorably disposed to Republicans. And there’s always the possibility that John Roberts’s chain could be yanked yet again, or Kennedy could decide to make some history before departing the Court. I’m pretty conservative (alt-right) and I’m inclined to think Cruz’s claim to be a “natural born citizen” is pretty weak.

    Slightly off topic, but circumstances such as the Cruz candidacy might be compelling for the Court to break it’s ordinary practice and issue an advisory opinion. Some state courts do this, and I’m unaware of any serious adverse consequences.

    • Replies:
  141. Although his health condition was much worse than Justice Scalia, I think the actor John Candy died of a heart attack in his sleep. Probably not peaceful, but still natural. In Justice Scalia’s case I’m inclined to a heart attack theory. I know of one fellow who died of a heart attack so quickly he fell on his nose–he didn’t even get his arms out to try and break his fall, but probably never felt the impact.

    • Replies: , ,
  142. Rapid heart attack deaths were more common in the past.

    • Replies: , ,
  143. All my haute bourgeois Indian acquaintances are touting him on social media… They have arrived!

    • Replies:
  144. My guess is Cass Sunstein, or, if O wants the minimum
    of scuffle, a white Protestant.

    • Replies: ,
  145. “Obama can’t nominate the first black or woman, but he can nominate the first gay.”

    He already did, unless two less-than-attractive, manhating dykes don’t count.

    (I’ll post this comment again, Steve, without alluding to both women’s physical ugliness because I know you have a soft spot for ugly chicks — you probably have an ugly daughter, I know.)

    • Replies: ,
  146. “Obama can’t nominate the first black or woman, but he can nominate the first gay.”

    He already did, unless two unmarriageable man-hating dykes don’t count as gay.

  147. Wikipedia says Sunstein is Jewish. I am guessing the Indian guy gets the nod.

  148. People in their late 70s and 80s keel over all the time. Several of my friends’ parents stood up from bed and fell back down dead.

  149. Sorry, missed the “or.”

  150. Closeted gays don’t count because you can’t stand in front of people and preen in your history-making moment. Also, lesbians have less cache than gay men.

  151. A friend’s dad died at the gym. The description was that he just “wilted” and collapsed. Probably dead within seconds.

    When my dad died it was drawn out: first, unconsciousness for 36 hours, then his heartbeat just got slower and slower until it stopped. Then his skin turned grey. Basically his body just said, All done now.

    Sorry to be gruesome, but most of us have probably seen death at some point.

    • Replies: ,
  152. “I’ll post this comment again, Steve, without alluding to both women’s physical ugliness because I know you have a soft spot for ugly chicks — you probably have an ugly daughter, I know.)”

    Hey, thanks for posting that, so that we all know you are a jerk.

  153. “Although his health condition was much worse than Justice Scalia, I think the actor John Candy died of a heart attack in his sleep. ”

    Do we know that Scalia was in better health than John Candy? David Bowie and Glen Frey both died recently, prompting a lot of people to remark that they didn’t even know that they were seriously ill. And both of them were at least as big, celebrity-wise, as Scalia was. Moreso, I should think.

  154. Heart attacks are often painful, drawn out and shockingly distressing events. Cardiac events where the heart simply stops beating can be more like what is described in those “keel-over situations” : the brain runs out of oxygen and dies.

    I had a friend whose father developed a severe headache on a fishing trip in Wisconsin. It turned out to be an aneurysm: he went to bed early, got up late the next day, and sat around a while. Then for some reason he decided to go outside and picked up an axe and chopped wood. He came back in and apparently heard a “pop”, because he asked what that was, got off his chair, and declared, “Gee, I feel great”. He walked a few feet and dropped dead.

    My friend got a similar headache and his wife called an ambulance, telling the crew what had happened to his father. They took him in and did an MRI and sure enough, a similar, huge aneurysm was there. The headcrackers opened him up and were able to repair it and he is still alive, although the surgery left him with some neurological deficits.

  155. I had thought of Kirk too, to pry him out of the Senate and make it easier for a Democrat to take that seat. But I remembered that Illinois now has a Republican governor, and may replace Kirk with someone more likely to win the election coming up this November.

    • Replies:
  156. Dirk Dagger [AKA "Chico Caldera"]
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Su tierra es mi tierra, mi hermano. I’m only here as an “act of love”, you wouldn’t want me consigned to posting in de shadows, no?

    • Replies: ,
  157. But the spectacle of Teddy Bare rallying his troops in the senate to negate a Republican congressman for a month, during his presidential election would be must see TV.

  158. Rapid heart attack deaths were more common in the past.

    Because other causes of death were proportionally less common, no? Keeping in mind that many 40+ year-old men now know that random loss of sensation is a sign 0f a heart attack and that aspirin is good.

  159. Chico, I just checked with Jeb!!!, and he gave you a thumbs up based on your use of that magic phrase, “act of love.” (In contrast to Trump, who just sneered.) But he insisted that you will have to pay all your taxes, not have a criminal record, prove that you are as fluent in English as Columba, and come up with an appropriate replacement for Scalia before we can even show you that path to citizenship. Actually, I can see that path from my condo. It runs parallel to the bike path which goes by my place here in south Florida. I think it was built when Jeb!!! was governor.

  160. Another option is Obama and the Senate Republicans make a deal and Obama gets to put someone he wants.

    And what would Republicans get? Oh yeah, nothing.

  161. Is she a familiar with the interior of the Little Wagon as her old man was?

  162. The two most frightening words I’ve heard today are “Deval Patrick.” Affirmative Action for morons.

  163. I vote for #12, if only to see if he can gin up the Takings Clause (Fifth Amendment) as a way of ramming reparations down our throats.

  164. I’ve known two people whose husbands or fathers died at the gym, both not much more than age 40. I’ve also known one guy who died while running a marathon, and another guy who almost died while running the same marathon. This second guy didn’t just have a run of the mill heart attack, but a heart attack that is rarely survivable, though he did for some reason.

    Based on my my anecdotal experience, not knowing one’s physical or cardiovascular limitations seems to be a real life threatening condition. This isn’t always a function of carelessness, of course. Medical technology can’t diagnose everything, but Scalia was 79, grossly overweight and on a hunting trip. Not a good combination. He was a hero for whom I have great respect, and I know that none of us can pick the time of our death, but he owed it to the country to try and be healthy enough to last another year.

    • Replies:
  165. Chico, keep posting the posts that Americans don’t want to do.

  166. Boo away, donor class. Make it all as apparent to the voters as possible.

    The booing reminds me of those football chat shows. All these guys sitting around a table showing us how we’re supposed to talk and think about football. And it works really well. Most conversations with American men about football sound just like those painted whores talking.

    The boo-ers are trying to model for us how we are to think about Trump, relate to Trump, act around Trump. It’s the kind of tactic that works until it doesn’t, and when it doesn’t it really, really doesn’t.

    Listening to those buffoons booing Trump for stating the obvious, that the left was 100% right about W and the Iraq War, was really something. Can they really be trapped in an alternate universe where W was basically a good president who made good decisions and is unfairly maligned by his critics?

  167. Sudden cardiac death is what it is called. Very common. May be caused by a heart attack or not. Basically, your heart spazzes out and quits pumping entirely or almost entirely. You become unconscious quickly. It’s probably a pretty pleasant way to die.

  168. YES!

    America’s Foremost Public Intellectual!

    He could share his seat/slot with NdeGT (if he can take the time out of his busy sheddule of wine appreciation, MSM appearances, and Tweeting falsehoods about science and everything else)…

    …and that Princeton genius prof who drives like a maniac and claims White Racism and Cop Violence restrain her unfairly from taking physics-demonstrated risks with the lives of everyone around her.

  169. Yeah, today cardiac problems get strung out for decades till the Total Cashectomy is completed.

  170. I’m an agnostic when it comes to Cruz and the “natural born citizen” requirement of the Constitution. The main thing that bothers me is that it was only a year or two ago that he took steps to formally relinquish his Canadian citizenship that he gained when he was born. Based on what I have heard and read, apparently Trump had his lawyers look at the issue about a year ago, and they concluded they had no grounds to challenge Cruz on that issue. I am not familiar enough with that provision, so I have no reason to question the advice of Trump’s lawyers, but my gut reaction is no court, especially a circuit court, will ever rule that Cruz is ineligible to run for President because he is barred by the “natural citizen” clause.

    I used to feel the same way about the “birthright citizenship” provision, which, I think it’s safe to say, is the overwhelming opinion of lawyers in the U.S. I based my opinion on the language of the 14th Amendment itself, which reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” That language on its face appears to leave little doubt about the issue. I am sure that is all the vast bulk of U.S. lawyers have ever read in this area. It is only when you delve into the legislative history and the Supreme Court cases decided after the Civil War that you realize that there is confusion beneath the surface clarity. I don’t know if she was the first to raise an issue, but Anne Coulter certainly deserves credit for being the first to bring the issue to wide public attention. I have not read her book, but articles about the book impelled me to read the Wong Kim Ark case decided by the Supreme Court in 1898, the only Supreme Court case to address that issue. There I was surprised to learn that the parents of the child in question had been legally living in the U.S. for several years before the child was born and remained here for many years later. I posted a couple of messages on on the issue. I am sold on Coulter’s idea that the matter can be clarified by legislation and does not require a constitutional amendment, just as Trump has been arguing, but I would bet a large sum that there are few lawyers in the U.S. who agree with my view and Coulter’s view, because few have bothered to read Kim Ark Sum and the cases cited by Coulter in her book.

    (BTW in the past year, I happened to read a Supreme Court case about 30 years old (1982 comes to mind) that required, by a 5-4 decision, Texas to provide free public education to illegal alien children. Even though they were writing a dissent and the issue had no bearing on the principal issue in the case, Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice Rehnquist wrote dicta in their dissenting opinions stating categorically that the 14th Amendment provided for U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. That may explain why Ted Cruz initially took the position that a Constitutional amendment was necessary to resolve the problem, since he once clerked for Rehnquist. After being thrown for a loop, I subsequently comforted myself with the thought that the statements were dicta and were made by someone (probably a law clerk) without bothering to delve deeply into the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case and the cases preceding it.)

    BTW, as early as 2009, I was convinced that the “individual mandate” of Obamacare violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution because it forced individuals to engage in commerce by buying an insurance policy. I gather the lawyers in the U.S. who agreed with me on that issue could be counted on one hand. I predicted for years on TAC that the Supreme Court would ultimately rule that the “individual mandate” was unconstitutional. and The irony is that five Justices ultimately agreed it was, but Chief Justice Roberts came up with the loopy theory that it was permissible under the tax authority of the Constitution, without bothering to explore the various limitations on that Constitutional provision which necessitated passage of the 16th Amendment.

    • Replies: ,
  171. I would note that he was born in India. Another 9th Circuit judge being touted was born in Mexico. Although the Constitution permits such appointments and such appointments have been made in the past (Frankfurter comes to mind), I think it is a terrible idea to appoint someone who was not born here to our highest court. That also applied to Miquel Estrada, the gentleman from central America who came to the U.S. at 16 and was being pushed by Republicans during W’s Administration. He may be the most brilliant lawyer around, but I want our Constitution and laws interpreted by Americans.

    P.S.—Sorry, Chico Caldera. Nothing personal.

    • Replies: ,
  172. “My guess is Cass Sunstein,”

    Just what we desperately need, another Jewish Justice. There would be the advantage of bringing balance to the Court, by having 2 male Jewish Justices balance the 2 female Jewish Justices. There is also the advantage of having enough Jews on the Court to play bridge games. BTW what happened to diversity? Jews comprise just 2% of American population, but currently constitute 33-1/3% of the Justices on the Court.

  173. I’m impressed with the breadth and depth of your knowledge of constitutional issues, law and jurisprudence. Keep posting–I read them with interest!

    Wickard v. Filburn was one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court. I know that you’ll know what I’m talking about.

    Whatever happened to the challenge to Obamacare as a tax based on the “Origination clause” of the Constitution?

  174. Although not exactly the same, I had a visceral “that ain’t right,” reaction when a Sihk decided that the Confederate Battle Ensign should be hauled down. It’s not up to someone with no background in South Carolina to make that decision–I don’t care what elective office she occupied. I lost two ancestors fighting for the Union, and I’ll bet they respected the Johnny Rebs more than she did. There’s a role for blood and soil, even today.

  175. The Onion:

    Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia
    February 15, 2016
    Vol 52 Issue 06 News · Supreme Court · Barack Obama

    WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. “These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?” Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of queer, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. “I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options.” Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.

  176. It’s high-time for a Protestant on the Supreme Court:

    From the founding of the Republic until 1836, every Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court was not only male but a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant).

    That changed with the first Roman Catholic elevated to the Court, Roger B. Taney of Dred Scott infamy. Two other Catholics were appointed in the 1890s. The idea took hold of an informal representative “Catholic seat” on the Court.

    The first Jewish Justice, Louis Brandeis, was confirmed in 1916. Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American, in 1967. The first woman, Sandra Day O’Connor, in 1981. The first Hispanic, Sonia Sotomayor, in 2009. Given our admirable passion for representative fairness, I suppose we should be scouting out talented jurists who are (fill in the blank) Asian, Native American, Mormon, Muslim, Scientologist, avowedly atheist, openly gay, bisexual, transgender, differently abled, and so forth.

    But hold on a minute! In our zeal for diversity on the Court, we somewhere seem to have lost track of somebody. There is not a single WASP on today’s Supreme Court – indeed not a single Protestant of any racial, linguistic, or gender description.

    Especially as the Court has become less and less a judicial referee – as the Obergefell decision on same-sex marriage recently reminded us – than effectively a super-legislature that feels entitled to impose the robed solons’ personal preferences on the nation, fair representation is more important than ever. It is intolerable that not one member of America’s founding ethnos and core demographic sits on our highest panel as it just makes up stuff nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

    I am not a WASP or even a Protestant, but I believe it’s time for a Protestant to be named to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy. Ideally, the nominee should be from one of the confessions that dominated the United States at our founding (an Episcopalian, a Congregationalist, or a Quaker), but I could be persuaded of the merits of a Methodist, a Lutheran, a Baptist or other Evangelical, or even (going out on limb here) a Presbyterian. Note that nothing in the Constitution requires Justices to be lawyers – another testament to the Founding Fathers’ timeless perspicacity.

  177. The case whose name I couldn’t remember off hand was Plyler v. Doe, U.S. 457 U.S. 202 (1982), Contrary to what I said previously, the majority opinion was written by Justice William Brennan, which was joined by Blackmun, Powell, Stevens and Marshall. Both Blackmun and Powell filed separate concurring opinions. The majority decision contained the following footnote:

    “10. Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . .” (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term “jurisdiction” was used. He further noted that it was impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Id. at 687.

    Justice Gray concluded that

    [e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment “jurisdiction” can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).”

    Chief Justice Warren Burger filed a dissent, joined by three other Justices, White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, contained the following relevant footnotes:

    “4. Both the opinion of the Court and JUSTICE POWELL’s concurrence imply that appellees are being “penalized” because their parents are illegal entrants. Ante at 220; ante at 238-239, and 239, n. 3 (POWELL, J., concurring). However, Texas has classified appellees on the basis of their own illegal status, not that of their parents. Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees’ siblings, are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship. Texas provides a free public education to countless thousands of Mexican immigrants who are lawfully in this country.”

    ” 6. Indeed, even children of illegal alien parents born in the United States can be said to be “penalized” when their parents are deported.”

    Not quite as clear and outspoken as I remember, but the inescapable implication is that even the dissenting Justices (including Rehnquist) accepted the notion that the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., even though the issue was not central to the holding of the case.

  178. Here are the basic facts about a recess appointment. The Senate is now in recess until February 22, 2016 so Obama has about a week to change his mind and make a recess appointment before the Senate returns. The advantage or disadvantage of a recess appointment now (depending on your point of view) is that the appointment would expire in February 2017 giving the new president the opportunity to name the long-term successor to Scalia shortly after he assumed office. That would make the composition of the court a campaign issue in the 2016 election, which would be the case anyway. The only advantage to the recess appointment would be to convert possible 4-4 ties by the Court over the next year into 5-4 victories for the Democrats. Since Obama could always avail himself of a recess appointment whenever a Senate recess occurred, the Republicans in Congress would take care for the rest of the year not to schedule any recesses, even when the bulk of Senators are back home. As it stands now, apparently, Congress’ current session is due to expire on Jan. 3, 2017 and Congress is not scheduled to reconvene until after Jan. 20, which would appear to give Obama a small window to make a recess appointment before he leaves office on Jan. 20. But here is where the 20th Amendment to the Constitution comes into play. The 20th Amendment, which changed the inauguration of the new president to January 20 from the original March 4, states in Section 2 that “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.” So the date set for the next Congress to meet after Jan. 20 can be changed by the existing Congress controlled by Republicans back to the January 3 set forth in the 20th Amendment. That would only become necessary if the Republicans win the Presidency. Otherwise, it would be a moot point. Bottom line is that the Republicans only have to worry about a possible recess appointment for the next week.

  179. Gym death. There’s probably lots of studies out there about it.

    My personal observation is that we’re born with so many beats for our hearts to make, and then when it’s done, you’re done. It’s the only muscle in the body that never rests, until it stops.

    Me and all my friends in our 40′s and 50′s are seeing our parents go, and the patterns are pretty reliable. Here today, gone tomorrow.

    It’s possible Scalia may have known he was close to death and wanted one last hunting trip before he checked out. I always assumed he had a hotline straight to the Lawgiver.

  180. Agreed. One of the most annoying things in my social media life are b-school colleagues with H1Bs from India posting about “what it really means to be an American”, which amazingly means more Indians and other people of fringe coming here and not staying there…

Comments are closed.

The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?