On picking a candidate Justice for the Supreme Court

[grantcart]

Many factors that should be considered have been discussed here and in the media; ideology, demographic representage, age, etc, but the most important factor is often never mentioned or considered; the ability to persuade.

While many in the liberal blogosphere are calling for the most ideological firebrand to be appointed this in fact would be a strategic mistake because the most important quality that the next Justice is their ability to persuade, particularly persuade Kennedy.

We are not looking for one sure but abrasive vote but one sure vote that is able to brink Kennedy along as much as possible.

The reason that those that are arguing for a 'firebrand' are arguing against their own interests is the same reason that Alito, Scalia and Thomas are terrible picks for the conservatives; these three have minimal impact on building majorities.

We don't want a 'leftist' Scalia that irritates his peers and gets ovations among the true believers, we want someone like Earl Warren who can deliver majority votes.

[Cha]

1. Here's to Pres Obama choosing

the best one for the job for the long haul like SCJ Sotomayer seems to very well be.

[joeybee12]

2. I thought that was the rationale for Sotomayor? n/t

[ruggerson]

3. two points

a) you're assuming that someone cannot be strongly to the left of center and at the same time, by temperament, be a consensus builder. I would posit to you that the two are not mutually exclusive.

b) Earl Warren was Chief Justice. The comparison is apples and oranges, as this opening is for an Associate Justice.

[grantcart]

5. On your two points

a) Many here are not arguing for a persuasive person on the left, they want someone like Rep Grayson (or Justice Douglas) that is literally a 'firebrand'. But the more ideologically 'pure' a person is the less that they are going to be able to persuade people who are more interested in practical and nuanced considerations.

b) Of course EW was CJ. And of course that is why CJ have more influence than a regular justice. Now going beyond what everyone knows is the fact that Earl Warren was not a judge but a politician, and Obama has been talking about getting someone other than a sitting judge to be considered as a Justice. Earl Warren is the most well known example of a person who was able to use interpersonal skills to build majorities. Initially Roberts was seen as someone that was a coalition builder.

The basic point that a 'safe vote' (which is humorous in itself because anybody who is going to be under serious consideration for the Supreme Court in this era will have become experienced in camoflauing their more strident ideological opinions to stay viable) is not as important as someone that contributes to building coalitions and majority votes. We do not want someone like a 'Scalia on the left' that makes all of the true believers erupt in escasty when reading their seperate minority opinion we want someone who helps us write majority opinions.

[Phx_Dem]

4. Cheers!

I'll drink to that.

:beer:

[ShortnFiery]

6. Yes, that ultra left Justice Ginsburg is a real liberal-ass irritant to the rest of the court.

:eyes: