Jeffrey Rosen has offered up his view that the Democrats have a very short list of viable Supreme Court appointees, should a member of the party be elected President. Doug Berman replies, correctly, that Rosen has an inside-the-beltway view of the issue, and he presents six suggestions of his own - including the Chief Justices of both Georgia and Colorado.
Of course, the Democratic Presidential race features two excellent potential Supreme Court nominees. Similarly, New York's Eliot Spitzer looks like a reasonably attractive possibility. Of course Hillary and Eliot might be seen, among activists, as getting a bit long in the tooth. If you want a Justice who will be around until 2060, it would be best to pick one closer to age 35. The smart search begins right here. I'll bet Ruth Bader Ginsburg has some great candidates coming online this July!
Photo: The Canada Supreme Court's official photo. Talk about a festive adjudicatory body!
I've often heard that Mrs. Clinton would seriously consider nominating Seth Waxman of WilmerHale, though this plays into the difficulty discussed in the TNR piece in nominating someone directly from private practice.
Would it be improper or unseemly for Justice Ginsburg to call the white house, or have lunch with "it", and say something like "I'm going to retire after OT 2010. Why don't you appoint Seth to a CTA spot so that you can elevate him (or whomever else is coming from private practice) when I step down."?
Posted by: Bradford Hardin | February 27, 2008 at 08:10 AM
A new article in the Washintonian provides some support for my comment above:
"For a new Democratic president, former solicitor general Seth Waxman is considered the next justice in waiting. He is a busy partner at Washington’s WilmerHale"
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/7079.html
Posted by: Bradford Hardin | April 07, 2008 at 04:50 PM