Elizabeth Warren.

A liberal Scalia?

A total oxymoron, and besides we don't need any more self-aggrandizing ideologues on the court, of whatever stripe.

I'd love for him to pick someone who has the cojones to utter the sentence, , "Hey Scalia, shut the f**k up and sit down."

What fucking planet are these idiots living on if they think the Repukes / Faux aren't going to scream bloody Armageddon no matter who he nominates??

Russ Feingold. Well-respected and an independent thinker. He's liberal. And he will get support from Republican Senators b/c he is a Senator. And it will give the GOP a chance at the Wisconsin Senate seat in 2010.

Absolutely right, Steve. I'm cautiously optimistic that they will in fact pick a strong progressive, given that the GOP has tipped its obstructionist hand by voting en masse against all administration initiatives. Screw the Villagers and do the right thing.

he'll either sacrifice some political good will or he'll upset his base.

Be nice to the pouting whiners in the corner, but don't you dare smile at the whiners from rogue nations. How does anyone not see through this kind of nonsense?

Hopefully, these months of the Goposaurs cementing their position as the party of No and leaving a bloody stump any time Obama reached his hand out in a bipartisan gesture have convinced Obama to ignore their whines on a SCOTUS selection. If so, the G.No.P.'s mean spirited and petty obstinacy will have backfired on them big time.

And it needs to be a YOUNG progressive.

Yes, a young progressive who would like a lifetime job for 40+ years.

No moderates! Democrats are always cowed into appointing moderates for everything, while the GOP nominates hard right activists.

I still can't decide whether the right buzzword is "liberal Scalia" or "anti-Scalia." I think what we actually want is an anti-Scalia.

Yeah, what good will? Those little bitches have been stymieing the process since January 20.

This is good timing because either the R's have to bend or look like obstructionists and with the health care debate around the corner, I think they can realty slam them with serious liberal.

Why oh why can't it be Scalia who intends to step down?

Well 49% of Americans now favor gay marriage. Go ahead, GOP. Demand a federal supreme court to the right of Iowa's supreme court. I dare you.

John Dickerson names four potential female candidates here. Obama should simply pick the most progressive, and that will be that.

More on the anti-Scalia meme here.

I'll bet a month's salary that the Republicans forget that "judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote".

As they head toward the confirmation hearings, I hope the DNC has looked up all the crap that the right wing said in advance of the Roberts and Alito hearings. All that stuff about what Democrats could and could not ask a person who's been nominated by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to be a justice on the Supreme Court.

Reid, Schumer, Durbin, Leahy, and all the others need to be prepared to throw all that stuff right back in the faces of McConnell and Graham and all the other bitches.

Another Souter would be fine.

of course the Rethugs are going to foam at the mouth no matter who Obama nominates. They've made their truculence very clear. Obama, hopefully, has learned that his concept of bipartisanship is an anachronism.

Ideally the new member of the court will be able to swing Justice Kennedy more to the left so that more 5-4 decisions fall on the progressive side. Until one of the 3 elderly conservatives leaves - Alito and Roberts are there for the long haul unless providence intervenes - no real swing on the court can occur.

it's far more likely that the left wing of the court will see itself replaced. Scalia and Thomas will have to be carried out. Kennedy is the most likely of the right-wingers to leave. In the meantime Ginsberg and especially Stevens are probably on their way out.

It's likely that the faces will change, but not the judicial approach.

Let them rant and rave. As I've said, I really hope Obama picks someone like Sotomayer, because I'd love to see the prospect of a respected female Hispanic judge getting pilloried by a pack of pasty aging white guys. How will that contrast look for you to the public, GOP?

However, I don't think the GOP will put up that much resistance to this pick, because it'll be a liberal replacing a liberal. The REAL fight will be if Kennedy or Scalia (or, one can hope, the utterly useless Clarence Thomas) retires, which would tip the court firmly to the liberal bloc. The GOP probably will go all out in that case.

What was Obama thinking when he propagated this nonsense about bipartisanship, as if the GOP was not manned by despicable assoholes but some nice people who cared deeply about the future of this great nation?

rusrus at 10:11 is right on the money.What goodwill? These flaming rightwing assholes are unquestionably going to fight tooth and nail to bring down any nominee. If Jesus came back to life and was nominated to be a supreme court justice these retards would fight it.
So therefore stop paying attention to these village idiots and nominate and confirm whoever we want. If it's a gay black hispanic woman who's a member of acorn that would be perfect. We could all buy a large bucket of buttered popcorn and sit back and watch these nuts heads spin around like Linda Blair in the exorcist until they just scerw right off.

I'd love for him to pick someone who has the cojones to utter the sentence, , "Hey Scalia, shut the f**k up and sit down."

Sadly, I have no experience on the bench, or even a law degree, but I could fulfill this particular requirement quite snappily.

What was Obama thinking when he propagated this nonsense about bipartisanship, as if the GOP was not manned by despicable assoholes but some nice people who cared deeply about the future of this great nation?

He was reaching out to Republican voters who were leaning towards him but were nervous about having all of their concerns trampled by the DFH's. Since Republican identification is now in the low 20s, it looks like it worked.

Sadly, I have no experience on the bench, or even a law degree, but I could fulfill this particular requirement quite snappily.

Having a law degree is, to many people's surprise, no requirement for being appointed to the Supreme Court. I say go for it.

There is no such thing as a liberal Scalia. Scalia is what is known by lawyers as a strict constructionist. That is, the first place to look for the answer to a question of constitutional interpretation is what the Founding Fathers would have said in answer to the question. That is by definition a conservative mode of inquiry. That is also what has led to a few recent block-buster decisions in criminal law such as the Crawford case, which overturned several decades of legal interpretation of the hearsay rule, and the Gant decision last week (Scalia wrote a concurring opinion that provided the fifth vote) which overturned several decades worth of court decisions regarding the shape and permissibility of vehicle searches incident to the arrest of a vehicle's occupant.
What a strict constructionist like Scalia says is that it doesn't matter how a particular issue has been resolved over the years or how much everyone has come to rely on that interpretation. What does matter is how the Founders viewed (or would view) the issue. Adherence to precedent (the rule of stare decisis) and predictability of law is less important than deciding the question as it would have been had it come up in 1789.

A liberal accepts that the world has changed in the last 200 years and bases constitutional interpretation on that fact. For example, it is no longer widely assumed that people of European descent are inherently superior to all others, that women should content themselves with being homemakers and submitting their will to that of their husbands, that poor children may rightfully be made to work instead of going to school, etc. A liberal constitutional lawyer accepts that all laws, including the constitution, are to one degree or another living documents that change with interpretation and history.

"Liberal Scalia" really is an oxymoron.

Forget about Reid throwing anything back - As well as backbone problems, he has had a permanent leftwing torn rotary cuff, for years.

I suggest we find somebody willing to slip some Drain-O into his fellow justices coffee. ;)

(Just kidding.)

Having a law degree is, to many people's surprise, no requirement for being appointed to the Supreme Court.

I knew someone would point that out; I just figured it would be Danp. Yeah, I know it's not a requirement, but it's been a long time since a non-lawyer was on the court. I'll just criticize Nino loudly in other venues.

Except, of course, Republicans are going to be upset anyway -- assuming Obama doesn't nominate a Federalist Society member -- and have no intention of offering any "good will."

That's the thing that the Obama team absolutely must remember here. The Right will squawk; this is a guarantee. So dont try to game a scenario under which that doesnt happen. It's not possible.

I do think, though, that - given the fact that there will likely be other vacancies coming up - Obama would be wise to follow the model that Bush laid out in his term. Start off with a justice that's somewhat centrist. Not hardcore left (or, in Bush's case, right), but certainly leaning that direction. That will smoke out all the criticism.

Then when the next vacancy comes up, that's when you go for the hardcore left justice. The opposition will have already used up all their outrage and tactics, allowing you to say "Look, these guys went nutso over the center-left justice I nominated before. They'll go nutso over anybody. You can ignore them."

So much for yesterdays's talking point of the Repub's rebranding and NCNA... methinks the obstructionism will continue and the GOP is just the SOP (same old party).

I remember watching Taylor on The News Hour back during either Rehnquist/Thomas or the Clinton impeachment and when the subject of perjury came up (which Rehnquist and Thomas both committed) Taylor excused their actions by saying to the effect "well, maybe they don't consider it lying, they just didn't want their careers judged on the basis of one minor incident in their otherwise stellar careers."
I'm also looking at an article by Howard Kurtz from the WaPo 04/04/1998 "Clinton Critic Weighs Starr Job Offer" on his negotiations to work with Starr.
Taylor says of Starr: "He is everything that Clinton is not: honest, principled, and utterly inept at spin."
Consider Taylors's judgement.
Then laugh.

Who is Stuart Taylor, and why does he insist on publishing such tripe?

Hey Stuie, did you ever proffer that President Obama would venture forth to diliberately choose a well vetted nominee who will present no such either/or nonsense you wasted our time with? Maybe Ã…mericans are beginning to welcome the dynamic of analysis, recognition, consensus, and solution without having people like you spewing upon us any preset bias you seem to carry with your pen! -Kevo

Yeah, I know it's not a requirement, but it's been a long time since a non-lawyer was on the court.

Well, there is Clarence Thomas.....

"Conservatives concede that the Democrat-led Senate..."

I still find it interesting how Republicans start off with an insult, then proceed to tell you what you "must" do. I suppose minority status is difficult to get used to, but give them time and by that I mean centuries.

Obama should nominate the most liberal judge he can find and then have Reid threaten the nuclear option.

It's not gonna happen, but we can dream.

And Taylor is a pretty transparent hack.

Steve,

Any names for the liberal-Scalia (aka, the anti-Scalia)? How about Hilzoy, I'd particularly like to hear her take on this.

Isn't it possible that Obama, with his in-depth knowledge of constitutional law, could pick a very effective stealth candidate? One who has a view of the constitution that lends itself to a liberal view, without necessarily having a political aura as "progressive"?

"Let them rant and rave. As I've said, I really hope Obama picks someone like Sotomayer, because I'd love to see the prospect of a respected female Hispanic judge getting pilloried by a pack of pasty aging white guys. How will that contrast look for you to the public, GOP?"

Exactly. They shoot her down and they lose the hispanic vote for the next 50 years.

A liberal accepts that the world has changed in the last 200 years

What? You mean blacks count for more than 3/5ths of a person?

Would the founding fathers have approved?

He should nominate Perez Hilton. Since that's how any reasonable liberal nominee is going to be painted by the thugs anyway, Obama might as well go for the entertainment value.

You'd think they'd get it. They turned a massive surplus into an even bigger deficit. They lied and killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden. They set America's place in the world back 20 years. And still they expect people to listen.

Isn't it possible that Obama, with his in-depth knowledge of constitutional law, could pick a very effective stealth candidate? One who has a view of the constitution that lends itself to a liberal view, without necessarily having a political aura as "progressive"?

Ah! The "anti-Roberts," but with actual integrity.

Scalia is what is known by lawyers as a strict constructionist.

Maybe Scalia was once thought to be a strict constructionist -- but Bush v Gore pretty much disproved that hypothesis for all time.

Scalia is a right-wing hack who poses as a strict constructionist unless that pose interferes with reaching the a priori conclusions that accord with his visceral contempt for liberalism and for the welfare of common people.

"Scalia is what is known by lawyers as a strict constructionist. That is, the first place to look for the answer to a question of constitutional interpretation is what the Founding Fathers would have said in answer to the question."

You confuse what he SAYS he is with what he really is -- a reactionary elitist Roman Catholic.

When he wants, he can invent law out of thin air with the best of them.

No true "strict constructionist" would EVER have joined the majority in Bush v. Gore.

Scalia is what is known by lawyers as a strict constructionist. That is, the first place to look for the answer to a question of constitutional interpretation is what the Founding Fathers would have said in answer to the question.

Actually, Scalia is supposedly an advocate of "Original Understanding", whereby one looks to what the public understood to be the meaning of a law at the time it was passed, as opposed to "Original Intent", which involves looking to what the drafters of the law intended.

But as others have noted, that is all a bunch of BS -- in reality, Scalia is a scheisster of the first order.

Obama is at a minimum disappoint progressives with hsi SCOTUS pick and possibly outrage them. This is his MO.

I recommend Dahlia Lithwick.