Well, that didn't take long. Ben Smith of Politico.com has a post up regarding a memo that is now circulating among conservatives identifying the problems they have with the three women who will most likely be atop the shortlist of Obama's eventual nominee to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayer and Diane Wood.

On Elena Kagan:

"Dean Kagan has taken positions that are disturbingly out of the mainstream...It is also unclear that a Justice Kagan would be an adequately independent check on executive excesses. She has argued in favor of greatly enhanced presidential control over the bureaucracy, which is concerning in light of President Obama's unprecedented centralization of power in the White House."

Am I the only one who finds this last line to be ridiculously hypocritical?

On Sonia Sotomayer:

"(Q)uestions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor's temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a "bully" who "does not have a very good temperament" and who "abuses lawyers" with "inappropriate outbursts."

Are we supposed to read this as "She's a woman, so she's irrational"?

On Diane Wood:

"Judge Wood's judicial views have on occasion been far outside mainstream legal thought and appear driven by her personal policy views...Judge Wood has betrayed a consistent hostility to religious litigants and religious interests."

Yes, Diane Wood is pro-choice, so I guess that means she's a religion-hating liberal.

So the Republicans are going to attack these women as irrational, religion-hating, liberals. Oh, and did we mention that they aren't white men? After a careful reading of the entire memo, their argument boils down to this: Kagan has no experience as a judge. Sotomayer stands up for the rights of women and minorities. Wood is a champion of the separation of church and state.

One confusing line of argument in regards to Kagan:

-For example, driven by her view that the "don't ask; don't tell" policy adopted by a Democrat Congress and President Clinton is "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order," she argued that it violates the First Amendment for the United States to withhold funds from colleges that ban the military from recruiting on campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this view.

Am I to understand that they oppose Kagan because she opposed "Don't ask, don't tell"? I thought that conservatives shared this opinion. Oh well, rational thought was never part of their argument anyway. Here we go! 

Huffington Post has a good article up on possible Supreme Court nomineees. In looking at various lists, I keep seeing the same names. Here's a few of them:

Sonia Sotomayor: An Hispanic with 16 years of court experience who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, Sotomayor is a graduate of Yale Law and considered a legal liberal. She also shares a biographical footnote with Souter: they both were appointed by George H. W. Bush -- Sotomayor to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1992.

*****

Elena Kagan: The first woman to serve in the post of Solicitor General, she arrived at the Department of Justice from her post as Dean of the Harvard Law School. She served as Associate Counsel to President Bill Clintonand as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Should Obama choose her, it would mean his White House would have to fill another vacancy. But her academic and judicial pedigree seem almost better suited for the Court than as a lawyer arguing before it. Plus, she's already been through the confirmation process.

Seth Waxman: The 41st Solicitor General of the United States, Waxmnan is 58-years old and a graduate of Yale Law School. Perhaps his greatest claim to legal fame was arguing Boumediene v. Bush before the Supreme Court, which upheld habeas corpus rights for detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Diane Wood: Wood, a 58-year-old Chicagoan, has served for 14 years on the city's 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. She has made a reputation as a strong liberal voice on an otherwise conservative bench and her name was decidedly in the mix when speculation first arose that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would retire due to medical issues. The one downside: her position on abortion rights has already sparked the ire of conservatives and pro-life groups, portending a potentially contentious confirmation process.

Harold Koh: The Dean of Yale Law School, Koh is perhaps the highest-profile Asian-American legal mind in the country. He clerked for Associate Justice Harry Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and worked for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Reagan Justice Department. But if Obama wants a smooth confirmation battle, Koh might not be the pick. Nominated to be the State Department's legal adviser, he has attacked by conservatives who claimed that he values foreign law over the U.S. Constitution.

The article also includes a list of "dark horse" candidates:

Teresa Wynn Roseborough: A legal scholar, in an email to the Huffington Post, described the Clinton-era Deputy Assistant Attorney General as such: "She's late 40s, super smart and kind, decent, moderate; and was Editor in Chief of UNC law review. She clerked on the 4th Circuit and for Justice Stevens; worked in Department of Justice, was a partner at a private Atlanta firm; and now at a private counsel for MetLife. And, she's African-American. A perfect choice. Unimpeachable and perfect."

Leah Ward Sears: Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court.

Kathleen Sullivan: Former Dean of Stanford Law and a protege of Harvard's famed professor, Laurence Tribe.

William Fletcher: A U.S. federal appeals court judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the same circuit as one Jay Bybee, who will definitely not be an Obama Supreme Court nominee).

An interesting issue that will emerge, as mentioned in another post here, is whether Arlen Specter will support Obama's nominee. I'm hoping he doesn't, so we can run a true progressive Democrat in 2010 instead of getting stuck with Specter for another term. 

Looks like Obama will be making a Supreme Court pick. NPR is reporting:

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court's current term.

The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June.

Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and to return to his native New Hampshire.

Now, according to reliable sources he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

Any guesses on who will be on the short list? The article surmises:

Souter's retirement would give President Obama his first appointment to the high court, and most observers expect that he will appoint a woman.

The court currently has one female justice -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is recovering from cancer surgery.

Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBLOG has this list:

The three obvious candidates are Elena Kagan (SG), Sonia Sotomayor (CA2), and Diane Wood (CA7). The sleeper candidate is Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.

All four were born between 1950 and 1960. Diane Wood is the most respected as a judge. But she is the oldest (born 1950), and as a consequence a seat this summer would likely be her one shot. Kagan and Granholm have the advantage of being the youngest (born in 1960 and 1959, respectively). Granholm has experience dealing with legislatures and actually representing people, as well as law enforcement experience as the state's attorney general. Sonia Sotomayor has the advantage that she would be the first Hispanic nominee to the Court; she also served as a trial judge. She and Judge Wood have the longest written track record, but not one that would present any obstacle to confirmation with this Senate.

The whole post is pretty in-depth and is a good read. By the way, am I the only one breathing a huge sigh of relief that John McCain isn't making the choice?

A little bit of background info on David Souter from wikipedia:

David Hackett Souter (pronounced /ˈsuːtər/; born September 17, 1939) has been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1990. He filled the seat vacated by William J. Brennan.

Appointed to the Court by Republican President George H. W. Bush, he usually votes with the more liberal wing on the Roberts court. He currently ranks fourth in seniority among the Associate Justices.

*****

At the time of Souter's appointment, John Sununu assured President Bush and conservatives that Souter would be a "home run" for conservatism.^[5] In his testimony before the Senate, Souter espoused the concepts of originalism (as Bork had) and was thus thought by conservatives to be a strict constructionist on Constitutional matters.^[5] However, as a state's attorney and state Supreme Court judge, he had never been tested on matters of federal law.^[3]

Initially, from 1990 to 1993, Souter tended to be a conservative-leaning Justice, although not as conservative as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or William Rehnquist.^{[original research?]} In Souter's first year, Souter and Scalia voted alike close to 85 percent of the time; Souter voted with Kennedy and O'Connor about 97 percent of the time. The symbolic turning point came in two cases in 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey,^[5] in which the Court reaffirmed the essential holding in Roe v. Wade, and Lee v. Weisman, in which Souter voted against allowing prayer at a high school graduation ceremony. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Anthony Kennedy considered overturning Roe and upholding all the restrictions at issue in Casey. Souter considered upholding all the restrictions but still was uneasy about overturning Roe. After consulting with O'Connor, however, the three (who came to be known as the "troika") developed a joint opinion that upheld all the restrictions in the Casey case except for the mandatory notification of a husband while asserting the essential holding of Roe, that a right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution.

*****

In 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Souter wrote that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned because it would be "a surrender to political pressure... So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question."

*****

Bush v. Gore

In 2000, Souter voted and dissented along with the three other justices in Bush vs. Gore to allow the presidential election recount to continue while the majority voted to end the recount based on the rule of law, making Bush the president.

Jeffrey Toobin wrote of Souter's reaction to Bush v. Gore in his 2007 book The Nine:

"Toughened, or coarsened, by the their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn't. His whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues' actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter thought he might not be able to serve with them anymore. Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of Bush v. Gore and wept."

Thank you for your service Justice Souter!

Wow, so here you have it. "George said it was okay, and I didn't authorize anything, I just received the authorization and passed it on down the line." A perfect Richard Nixon moment:

Patience...wearing....thin.....

To paraphrase idiotic, "THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!!...FOR THE REPUBLICANS!!!"

 Statement by Senator Arlen Specter

   I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

   Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

   When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

   Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

   I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

   I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

   I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

   I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.

   I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

   While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

   My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

   Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Comments? I only have this to add: