Last time, I said Pamela Karlan would be my dream pick, and I'll stick with it. There are other good options out there [including a pal of Thomas']. Some have been suggested. This includes as a matter of "realistic shot of being nominated." See also, Dawn Johnsen.
Though given the importance of the seat and the party in power, in theory, Pamela Karlan (repeat advocate in front of the Court, has the brains to challenge Scalia, not too old/young) has various qualities that should meet the test. I know ... no need to tell me how things work, but fights include things that move the line. Note how the Republicans are pushing for Merrick Garland (whoever that is ... and his friends at the moment make me nervous ... the name sounds kewl) as the "best choice we can get," even though it's not likely they will get it. Makes them seem reasonable.
But, pushback should be made against Elena Kagan, deemed to be the current frontrunner. Last time, Judge Diane Wood (who has a nemesis around Slate parts) was said to be the frontrunner and Sotomayor got the seat. I thought Sotomayor was a fine choice at the time, especially given the likely options. But, Souter is not being replaced now. It isn't his first nomination. And, making Republicans happy isn't a great political choice before the '10 elections either. Hint: if Orin Hatch or Jeff Sessions doesn't like someone, it just might be said person is a good choice.
Anyways, Kagan is a question mark. Glenn Greenwald today (he is not alone) makes a good case to be wary of her. On executive power in particular. She will satisfy some on social issues, but even there, he notes that it is not totally clear how firm of a choice she is. Replacing Stevens really shouldn't be some stab in the dark. The executive power issue in particular is important. Some of the best rulings in the last few years have been by Republican nominated lower court judges who realize that our system of limited government includes restraint on the executive.
As someone once noted, let us not let appearances alone decide someone is okay. In some ways, Kagan looks like a good pick. But, seems more of a risky one that in some ways is a matter of settling. Is that what a replacement of Stevens should be?
[To put it out there, so to speak, it is interesting how many lesbians are listed as credible options. Pamela Karlan and Katherine Sullivan (involved in some big cases, at times with Tribe) are longshots while Elena Kagan is pushed as a frontrunner candidate. Though, let's be honest, if told, you wouldn't be shocked or anything, the fact Kagan is a lesbian is not really apparent from many reports.]
---
* Democracy Now! notes:
On Capitol Hill, speculation is growing over who President Obama will nominate to replace the retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Speculation has centered on three top contenders: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland and U.S. Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood. But the White House says about 10 candidates remain under serious consideration. Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald joins us to talk about some of the contenders, in particular Elena Kagan.
So, even if there are some "top three" list out there, it need not be deemed final. After all, the "White House says." I didn't know the building talked, but it seems trustworthy.