I love little more than discussions about who'll next be appointed to the Supreme Court, so if someone as thoughtful as Tom Goldstein chooses to address the topic, I'm definitely going to link to his thoughts. After all, he picked John Roberts before most of the pundits had ever heard of john Roberts. So with that in mind, here's a detailed list that Goldstein and his colleagues have put together of likely Supreme Court nominees, if a Democrat wins the presidency.
Honestly, I disagree about the premium he puts on racial minorities, but I do agree that the next choice will be a woman, and it wouldn't surprise me if the next choice or two after that are also women. He eventually comes down to Kim McLane Wardlaw, Deval Patrick and Elena Kagan being the 3 Democratic picks to replace Souter, Stevens and Ginsburg. All those names are entirely reasonable and should be on short lists - though obviously whether or not Patrick would want to give up the governorship is questionable, as is whether a Democratic president would want to nominate someone, like Wardlaw, who is from the "controversial" 9th Circuit (though she's hardly the most liberal member of that court). Still those 3 make a lot of sense, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them as the first three picked. I'd also throw Diane Wood and Kathleen Sullivan into the mix as making the short short list. Still, Goldstein and his colleagues have done a lot of work on this and unearthed several names I'm not familiar with, so ... who knows? He's not on Goldstein's page, but perhaps even one of my favorite bloggers could make the list?
Posted by armand at July 12, 2007 02:24 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Law and the CourtsWow, there are some interesting law schools on there, not just all Harvard. While I'm sure someone from second tier, though still quite good law schools like UCLA, Notre Dame, or UNC would have no problem, I have to wonder if, in the wake of the Harriet Miers SMU debacle, we can really consider graduates of U of Montana and Valparaiso law to be serious candidates. This is not to demean the individuals themselves, just thinking in crass political terms. I'm sure they are still eminently better than Miers.
I, of course, am pulling for GULC grad Margaret McKeown. Although the land of Mark Tushnet and Mari Matsuda might be a little bit too liberal...
Posted by: ryan at July 13, 2007 10:23 AM | PERMALINK
Well I'd say a couple of things to that. First, Goldstein believes that a Democrat will feel compelled to nominate one or more racial minorities. The people who will be the right age likely went to law school in the 1970's - and the number of minority students at Harvard and Yale back then ... well I presume it's a pretty small pool to draw from (though there are some, like Governor Patrick), hence those other schools. Again, this assumes race will be a key factor (something I'm not so sure is the case).
Secondly, of those that are REALLY most likely to be nominated (or, well, those who've been discussed for years) - that set does come more from the usual schools. Elena Kagan and Kathleen Sullivan have both been discussed for years and years - both make complete sense as nominees - and both are out of Harvard.
And the idea of a Patrick nomination intrigues me more and more. I'd have never thought of him before, since I don't tend to think of elected officials as likely Court nominees, but he'd be a really interesting choice. I don't know much about McKeown.
Posted by: Armand at July 13, 2007 10:59 AM | PERMALINKI have to agree with you on the racial minorities thing. I don't think it will play nearly as big a role as Goldstein. The Deval Patrick one had me doing a double take as well. I don't think much of appointing politicians to the bench. Its politicized enough already, we might as well at least try to preserve the image of an impartial judiciary. As for McKeown, I know nothing about her. Its purely a school loyalty motivated pick.
Posted by: ryan at July 13, 2007 11:43 AM | PERMALINKNothing wrong with pulling for a Hoya - hardly. ;)
And I guess in Patrick's defense on the political front, he's been in elected office for less than a year, while his legal background is much, much deeper and quite interestingly varied (Harvard Law, Reinhardt clerk, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, general counsel of Texaco, general counsel of Coca-Cola ...). Though I still don't think he's the likeliest of nominees (though I'd say he merits a second and third look, should a Democrat be elected in 2008.
And the other reason (going back to your earlier point) about the lack of top law school backgrounds on Goldstein's list is that Goldstein, oddly, doesn't look at the professoriate as a likely place from which to draw potential nominees. Considering that Democrats haven't been naming people to the federal bench since the Clinton administration, and considering that Clinton didn't name all that many young judges, I think the next president is more likely to look to that branch of legal stars when picking a nominee. Which isn't to say that's where the 1st nominee will come from, but I think it's more likely they'll be considered than Goldstein implies.
Posted by: Armand at July 13, 2007 12:36 PM | PERMALINKI have to agree. I think the professoriate will a good mine of talent that it would be silly to discount.
Posted by: ryan at July 13, 2007 01:00 PM | PERMALINK