The BEST for the Court NOT the most young, ideological, politically advantageous. PLEASE

That's the BUSH way!

What happened to the notion that the highest court was the place to which a truly wise one could be elevated at the END of a life of service to be in a unique position to protect the rights of the people.

Is it wrong to want great thinking and great rulings from the highest court rather that the mumblings of a "political" appointment such as Clarence Thomas.

Should Obama be thinking of "influencing" the court for decades by appointing as smart youngster or putting on the highest court best constitutional mind who could provide the nation with perhaps only a few decisions that shape constitutional history.

What happened to considering the great legal minds such as Laurence Tribe who have been kept off the highest court for decades only because we had to nominate a moderate to get through the RW litmus tests.

It depresses me to hear all the talk about identity politics around a decision that should be free of such considerations.

As long as he's cute.

(Hey, we all have our desires for who should win.)

I do agree, though. It should be someone who has earned the post, not someone who gets it because we want to keep the court.

it has to do with actuarial tables. He should pick the youngest people he can find that are qualified.

who only looks good, but wouldn't have the experiential band-with to make the big decisions.

I don't like the identity politics that seem to be framing this selection one bit either.

Age usually also equals Reagan voter.

These two axioms seem contradictory.

Thankfully there's actual measurements for votes for Reagan, but no actual measurement for wisdom. So it would seem, that the latter is true, and the former just a favorite sentiment among those nearing their first Social Security check :)

... with no tax problems and a history of volunteerism/community service.

And make no mistake - this is a war. The Republicons have been doing battle with America for going on 30 yrs now, and have made great gains via deceit, lies & outright criminal activity for all that time, while the Democrats insisted on playing by the rules. As a result, we've been losing the war for most of that time - mostly through simple attrition, with our best & most experienced warriors simply dying off after a lifetime of service. Scalia, Thomas & Roberts don't have great influence because they are great legal minds. They have influence because they will be there a very long time.

We've recently had several major victories, but even though the battles in 2006 & 2008 were won - this war is far from over.

of caving to the RW and being backed into the corner of "moderation"

youngish jurists and legal scholars to choose from. And political considerations always factor in. that's just reality.

that's just reality. Competence as a jurist or legal scholar will be of secondary consideration. Just check out the threads on this forum as to whom people want as potential nominees. A pessimistic view of things, but IMO that is how it will play out.

I'd also rather that particular person be a woman.

If you don't have 5 votes you don't make constitutional history and I'm thinking Obama is going to be replacing 3 out of the 4 liberals and if he serves a second term he might replace Scalia.

:shrug:

Quite simply there's too much at stake if we nominate say some 70+ year old with lots of experience, and then in 2016 the GOP takes the whitehouse, and the now near 80 year old judge dies of old age or something. We can't risk stuff like abortion getting outlawed, and people being stripped of other rights conservatives want to trample over because of that.

We're already in trouble from the GOP having 4 radical conservatives on the court, and one moderate conservative, all of which are likely to try to retire when they know a conservative will replace them.

Better to nominate someone in their 40's or low 50's, so they can do what Souter did, serve a decade or two, and then retire when a liberal is in the white house, or better yet when a liberal is in the whitehouse and liberals control congress. Souter himself said that if Obama got elected president he would be the first judge on the court to retire.

We can have our cake and eat it too on this one, I damn well worked for that.

The court is a partisan football and it has been since the Nixon Administration. The days of accepting any qualified person regardless of ideology are over. The fact is that the ideological makeup of the court has consequences. Bush v Gore proved it.

I'd like it to be someone so brilliant (and liberal, of course) that his/her opinions would give Scalia apoplexy.