Obama Down to Three SCOTUS Finalists

[brooklynite]

Source: Political Wire

“President Obama is finalizing his decision on a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia and appears to have narrowed his choice to three candidates, according to people with knowledge of the vetting process,” the Washington Post reports.

“The three under consideration are Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Sri Srinivasan, a judge on the same court; and Paul Watford, a judge on the California-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.”

Read more: https://politicalwire.com/2016/03/11/obama-down-to-three-scotus-finalists/

[MADem]

1. Let's have some south Asian vibe on the court!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/03/10/what-would-a-hindu-justice-mean-for-the-supreme-court/

Need to make that court look a little more like America!!!

[Jim Lane]

8. If you want to make that court look more like America, Obama should pick a Protestant

It's striking that there are no Protestants on the Court. I don't think any of the appointing Presidents had an anti-Protestant bias; the religious breakdown just happened.

[Gore1FL]

19. Or an Atheist

If we are going with a religious test, I'd prefer that one.

[dsharp88]

2. If I remember correctly,Garland is conservative, Srinivasan's a moderate Dem, and Watford is liberal

Watford is thought to have the upper hand on the nomination and was just approved by this Senate in 2012 by a filibuster-proof majority. It would be the height of hypocrisy for them to turn around and deny him now (if they allow the vote instead of breaking their oath of office).

[Jane Austin]

3. Watford looks like a terrific pick.

Handsome, young (49) with good credentials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Watford

[davidpdx]

4. And he didn't go to one of the elite schools

Down to earth type of guy. The 9th Circuit has a reputation of being pretty liberal.

[Blasphemer]

6. I'm rooting for him to be the nominee if these are indeed the finalists

In addition to the fact that he possesses the right SCOTUS pedigree, I think it's the smartest political choice. The right is already up in arms about Garland's gun record so being more conservative than the other two won't help with the confirmation process anyway. Srinivasan is the safest of the three but perhaps a little too safe to galvanize voters over GOP obstructionism if he is denied. Watford seems to fit the bill in every way.

[BlueCollar]

7. Sounds good to me...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Watford


"...In 1997 Watford became an Assistant United States Attorney in the Major Frauds Section of the Criminal Division of the Central District of California, where he prosecuted a wide range of federal criminal cases, including white-collar criminal cases."

[Surya Gayatri]

20. Wow, he'd be the best-looking justice by far! Gorgeous, both his looks and his politics.

[elljay]

12. I don't think Garland is Conservative

on most issues. He may lean that way a bit on criminal law and on some procedural issues, but I think he's pretty squarely in the moderate/liberal stream on most other issues. Watford does seem to be more on the liberal side, though. Srinivasan is more of a question mark, as he has not been on the bench long enough to have a large trail of decisions and has quite a long record of defending very odious characters (Jeffrey Skilling, ExxonMobile) in previous jobs. Let's face it, Obama is a moderate himself, so is unlikely to appoint someone very liberal, much as I would like that to happen.

I wouldn't worry about the Republicans being sensitive to hypocrisy- they have perfected it to an art form. I don't think they will have any problem rejecting Watford, because they care not what we think, and their supporters know perfectly well that they are trying to prevent a political shift in the court and support that. The only possible consequences are for Republican Senators running in blue/purple states. The Republicans can protect their candidates by letting them vote for the nominee as long as there are enough negative votes to kill the nomination. Alternatively, they can just refuse to bring it up for a vote and let the Republican candidates "object" strenuously to the press.

[JackRiddler]

15. Based on that alone, I'd pick Garland.

He's from DC, probably a soldier, kind of an obvious sacrifice. Then they can go ahead with Garland, and keep Srinivasan in reserve. That's game theory, by the way.

[elljay]

5. Some Interesting Strategy to Consider

This will be a very interesting decision. All three candidates are qualified for the position so experience is not a meaningful factor. What Obama needs to balance is which candidate he is willing to let be burned by the Republican intransigence, but who would still be a good selection if approved.

Sri Srinivasan - would be first Indian and Hindu on the SCOTUS and this would be the first time a majority of the justices were not Christian. His politics are not really known - he has clearly been an ambitious player throughout his career, working for George Bush, representing multinational firms while working for a big corporate law firm, and then working under Obama as Deputy Solicitor General before being appointed to the bench. There is a perception that he may be a bit more pro-corporation than the other candidates. Has the least judicial experience of the candidates - almost 3 years on the Court of Appeals. Hard to predict where he will fit into the SCOTUS.

Merrick Garland - has been considered a SCOTUS candidate for years. Has by far the most judicial experience of the candidates - 21 years as a District Court and Court of Appeals judge. Would be the 5th Jew on the Supreme Court, which would also make it the first time the court had a majority of non-Christian justices. Seems to be on the moderate/liberal side of the issues.

Paul Watford - Watford would be the second African American justice on the court. He specialized in appellate practice. As an attorney I can tell you that this is a very different type of practice from most of us and would be very advantageous as a Supreme Court justice, the country's highest appellate court. Watford has 4 years experience on the Court of Appeals. Seems to be a moderate/liberal.

Srinivasan would be my No. 3 selection for whom I would want on the court, as he seems to be the most conservative candidate. It may upset the Indian-American community if he is rejected, but they are not a large voting group and are concentrated in states that are likely to vote Democratic, anyway, so no big political advantage. iF approved, he will still shift the court to the left as that is not hard when succeeding Scalia. This is whom I would pick if I were confident that the Republicans would reject.

Garland is someone I would be happy to see on the SCOTUS. There will be little political advantage in appointing him and having him rejected. I mean, as much as we Jews are proud of our success stories, we already vote Democratic and are not going to be gravely offended if there are only 4 Jews on the court. Not a candidate I would want to burn.

Watford is also someone I would be happy to see on the SCOTUS. There is a great political advantage in appointing him and having him rejected, because it is likely to anger the African-American community and may bring more voters to the polls in December. On the other hand, how many African Americans are there who don't intend to go to the polls to oppose Trump but who will get really pissed off at a rejected SCOTUS nominee and decide to vote? Probably not too many. Also not a candidate I would want to burn.

Let's see how Obama plays his hand.

[Jim Lane]

9. Correction on the religious balance

You write that, with a Srinivasan appointment, "this would be the first time a majority of the justices were not Christian." He'd be the first Hindu but there'd still be a Christian majority. Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Sotomayor, and Thomas are all Catholics.

[elljay]

10. You are absolutely correct

Shouldn't try counting on a Friday night! Thanks

[passiveporcupine]

14. Garland might not survive the Republicans

it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland
I like that, but he's still old and we need someone younger on the court.

Watford is young. Fresh, young outlook. Has worked pro bono to help the poor. And a good counter to Clarence, who may be black, but votes against the interests of blacks and other POC and women.

[StevieM]

11. I think Watford seems like a great pick. (eom)

[elljay]

13. Definitely, which is why perhaps he shouldn't be nominated right now

Given the likelihood that the Republicans will reject any candidate, a nomination now might kill any future chances Watford has. He didn't get a lot of Republican support when selected for the Court of Appeals.

[PoliticAverse]

16. Srinivasan (confirmed 97–0), Garland (confirmed 76-23), Watford (confirmed 61–34). n/t

[NascarDrivingJesus]

17. Merrick Garland is 63

Fuck that!

If Jane Lynch was on the shortlist, along with Srinivasan and Watford, it would pretty much match my prediction.

[seabeckind]

18. Sri looks too much like third way.

Mixed in with a different national heritage and attitude.

[bluestateguy]

21. Garland would at least have a fighting chance

But the odds are against any of them getting a hearing and confirmed.