Short Bench-Why the Dems lack Supreme Court nominees

[babylonsister]

Short Bench by Jeffrey Rosen
Why the Dems lack Supreme Court nominees.
Post Date Wednesday, March 12, 2008



As Democrats dream about the possibility of retaking the White House in 2008, they are also fantasizing about their first Supreme Court appointments since 1994. But the bench of potential candidates is surprisingly thin. For several decades, presidents have drawn their Supreme Court nominees from the ranks of appellate judges appointed by previous presidents of the same party. And, because the Democrats have been out of the White House for two terms, most of the sitting Democratic appellate judges are too old to be considered plausible Supreme Court candidates. For this reason, a President Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton might have to look for candidates in unexpected places.

Consider the statistics: The average age of all active federal appellate judges appointed by Republican presidents is 59.6, while the average age for Democratic appointees is 62.8. The age difference between the youngest sitting Bush appointee, Neil M. Gorsuch, 40, and the youngest sitting Clinton appointee, Charles R. Wilson, 53, is 13 years. Bush appointees are, on average, seven years younger than Clinton appointees. That difference may seem small, but James Lindgren and Steven Calabresi of Northwestern have calculated that, since the 1970s, the average age of appointment for Supreme Court justices was 53 and the average age of retirement was 79, creating an average tenure of 26 years. That means the seven-year advantage for Bush appointees would be equivalent to 27 percent of the lifespan of a Supreme Court justice.

Democrats have a strong incentive to pick younger justices this time around. As Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times has noted, "The average age of the last five Republican appointees was 50; the last five justices named by Democratic presidents were, on average, 56 1/2." The next Democratic president will also feel strong pressure to appoint a woman or a Latino justice--or both. Here, the pool of potential candidates is also shallow. Thirty-two percent of sitting Clinton-appointed federal appellate judges are women (18 out of 57), with a median age of 60 and an average age of 61. By contrast, 27 percent of sitting federal appellate judges appointed by George W. Bush are women (13 out of 48), with a median age of 56 and an average age of 54.

When it comes to Hispanic judges, the numbers aren't much better for the Democrats: Seven out of 57, or 12 percent, of sitting Clinton appointments are Hispanic, with an average age of 60. It's true that there are two relatively young female Hispanic circuit judges appointed by Clinton--Sonia Sotomayor and Kim Wardlaw, both 53 years old at the moment, although likely over 55 at the time of a potential Supreme Court vacancy. The Republican attack machine has long been gunning for Sotomayor, attacking her as a liberal activist even though she was appointed to the federal district court by the first President Bush. In fact, both Sotomayor and Wardlaw are accomplished candidates and deserve to be seriously considered. But the next Democratic president may prefer to choose nominees in their forties.

That leaves a limited number of options. Since all of the current justices previously served on appellate courts, the next Democratic president could follow the strategy George W. Bush pursued with John Roberts--choosing a distinguished lawyer in private practice and appointing her first to an appellate court and then to the Supreme Court. A Democratic, female John Roberts would be a highly respected Democratic Supreme Court advocate, and the clear front-runner in that category is Beth S. Brinkmann, 49, a partner at Morrison & Foerster who has argued more than 20 cases before the Court. A lawyer like Brinkmann--moderate, pragmatic, and pro-business--would have no trouble being confirmed to an appellate courtship, but there might not be enough time to get her through: Bush was able to promote Roberts from private practice only because there were no Supreme Court vacancies in his first term. A Democratic president may not have this luxury.


more...

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=57762136-6855-44c6-b057-7510b7cb4eda

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Perhaps, rather than looking at apellate judges we should be looking

to academia - constitutional scholars, presidents of law schools, etc.

Any good possibilities there?

[NMDemDist2]

2. Jonathon Turley? n/t

[antigop]

3. DAMN IT! WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE PRO-BUSINESS JUDGES!

The Supreme Court is already, NOW, OPEN FOR BUSINESS.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042040.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

With controversial rulings on abortion and campaign finance, the current U.S. Supreme Court has waded into some of the most explosive issues in American politics. Under the leadership of new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the high court appears to be on the verge of rewriting vast tracts of settled Constitutional law. But there's another important emerging feature of the Roberts Court that has not drawn nearly as much attention: its sympathy to business.

People are getting too hung up on social issues that they are ignoring the threat of a pro-business Supreme Court.

[theoldman]

4. It takes two things to get a Liberal on the court.

First you need a vacancy. You then need a majority in congress. It's more dependent on luck than smart.

[babylonsister]

5. There are going to be vacancies soon, especially if a

Dem wins the nomination this year; we have a couple of SCJ's who are long in the tooth. We already have a majority in Congress, and I see our numbers increasing in November as so many people are bowing out. Could be the perfect storm, which is why this needs to be discussed.

[bemildred]

6. Who is this loon?

Bush nominates Harriet Meirs for the USSC and we are talking about how the Democrats have no judge candidates? We have Slappy and Fat Tony and Alito on the USSC NOW and this guys wants to talk about how the Democrats have no good judge candidates?
:puke::puke:

[babylonsister]

7. I don't know about loon... I also don't know enough about who's

on any kind of short list.


http://www.tnr.com/columnists/Jeffrey_Rosen.html

Jeffrey Rosen has been legal affairs editor of The New Republic since 1992. He is also a Professor of Law at George Washington University. His most recent book is The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America. His other books include The Most Democratic Branch, The Naked Crowd, and The Unwanted Gaze. Rosen is a graduate of Harvard College, summa cum laude; Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar; and Yale Law School. His essays and commentaries have appeared in The New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, on National Public Radio, and in The New Yorker. The Chicago Tribune named him one of the ten best magazine journalists in America and the Los Angeles Times called him "the nation's most widely read and influential legal commentator." He lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife Christine Rosen and two sons.

[bemildred]

9. Yeah, yeah, Ok, he's not a loon.

I guess the thrust of his article annoys me. It starts with an assumption that I find ridiculous.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. He's not saying they aren't good - he's saying the normal pool

of apellate judges is getting too old. We're looking at the more recent repub justices being on the bench for 30 years - and against that, we have judges who have maybe 15 years left to their careers. We need Dem justices who are in the 48-53 age range, not 58-63, or Roberts will STILL be chief justice when our 'new' justices retire.

[bemildred]

10. Not after we impeach the remaining members of the felonious five.

And all of the appointments of the the Bush Usurpation.

[antigop]

11. Well, I'd like to see that...but I'm not holding my breath. n/t

[bemildred]

12. True, breathing is an important priority too. nt