The White House has confirmed that President Obama met Thursday with one candidate for the Supreme Court, the first time he has met with any potential nominee in the Oval Office since Justice John Paul Stevens announced he is retiring.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed the AP report of the president's meeting with federal Judge Sidney Thomas of Montana. Gibbs also told reporters this afternoon that an announcement is possible next week. "I ruled this week out," he said. "I'm not going to rule out next week based on the fact that the president is seeing more prospective candidates."

Gibbs said a decision "will come in the next little bit of time." He would not be more specific, but he said "the president has talked to several people." Also today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said they expect Obama to make his decision within two weeks.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., a Judiciary Committee member, each said today that they expect President Obama to nominate a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens within two weeks.

"We're going to have a name from the president in the next few weeks," Reid said on the Senate floor this morning. Reid added that timeline was his impression. Cardin spoke in an interview with ABC News.

Has the White House updated senators on its schedule? A Judiciary Committee spokeswoman said no, the senators appear to have based their remarks on past remarks by Obama.

From this morning's Earlybird:

• President Obama met Thursday with appellate judge Sidney Thomas, a potential candidate to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, AP reports.

• "A handful of lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee hope to compel the Supreme Court to begin televising its proceedings," The Hill reports.

• "Judicial experience is the most valued quality among a list of professional and personal characteristics," according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

A new Fox News poll shows Democrats, Republicans and independents generally in agreement on the criteria of characteristics, professional background and ideological affiliations President Obama should consider or not consider when selecting a new justice.

When asked about the nominee being a woman, 77 percent of Democrats, 87 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of independents agreed that it "shouldn't matter." The nominee being "a minority" drew similar results, and smaller but still robust majorities said it shouldn't matter if the nominee was "a homosexual."

About half of Democrats, Republicans and independents agreed that the nominee's being an attorney, a judge or a constitutional scholar should be "a factor" -- not the "single most important" factor, nor an unimportant one. There was some disagreement on the question of whether the nominee went to an Ivy League school or a "less elite, everyday American law school": A plurality of Republicans preferred the latter, while a plurality of Democrats and a majority of independents said it made no difference.

Those of all all political affiliations agreed that it would not matter if there were no justices with a "Protestant religious background" (John Paul Stevens was the only remaining Protestant on the court), and all were comfortable with the nominee being a Mormon or a Christian "who takes the Bible literally."

Respondents were not comfortable, however, with the idea of a Muslim, atheist or "socialist" on the Supreme Court. Thin majorities of Democrats and independents said they were comfortable with a Muslim, but fully 66 percent of Republicans said they were not comfortable. Republicans were also overwhelmingly opposed to an atheist or "socialist," while Democrats and independents split about evenly on the former and Democrats split evenly on the latter. All parties agreed they were comfortable with a libertarian on the court.

The poll surveyed 900 registered voters nationwide last week, with a 3-point margin of error.

Sen. Jeff Sessions tells ABC News that no matter who President Obama nominates for the Supreme Court, Republicans will use the hearing to attack Obama, arguing that the president wants a judiciary that supports his political views.

"It's pretty clear to me that President Obama sees judges as allies in an effort to promote an agenda he thinks is best for the country," said Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in an interview with ABC.

"What I'm hearing from my constituents is a cry that Washington is losing all recognition that it is a government of limited, delegated powers, and that it is assuming roles that go far beyond anything the governed ever thought that they would be doing," the Alabama Republican added.

Sessions said Republicans will seek the nominee's views on a new requirement that individuals buy health care insurance; property rights issues; gun rights; and Obama's attacks on the court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which threw out limits on corporate contributions to campaigns, according to ABC. Sessions added that it's "dangerous" that Obama has said he wants the nominee to consider how laws affect the lives of Americans.

From this morning's Earlybird:

• "The White House says President Obama won't announce a Supreme Court nominee this week," AP reports. "That pushes the timeline for Obama to announce his choice to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens into May."

• "Senator Dianne Feinstein has some advice for" Obama "about his next Supreme Court nominee: Don't pick a fight," Bloomberg News reports. "'There are people that one can appoint that are respected by both sides,' said Feinstein, a California Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, which will hold confirmation hearings. 'That's what I think he ought to look for.'"

• The Wall Street Journal reports on how Solicitor General Elena Kagan's time as Dean of Harvard Law School could help her win GOP support if she is nominated.

From this morning's Earlybird:

• 'Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) didn't write off the possibility that Republicans could use the filibuster against President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, but he said it was unlikely that his party would do so," Roll Call (subscription) reports.

• "The Congressional Black Caucus plans to meet this week to plot its strategy for the upcoming Supreme Court nomination," The Hill reports. "Caucus chairwoman Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) has urged" Obama "to consider a minority or woman candidate to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens."

• "The likelihood that health-care legislation and Wall Street reform will ultimately be decided in the Supreme Court underscores the importance of a new justice, with the White House and Democrats arguing that whoever replaces retiring" Stevens "will be key in moving the court to uphold laws protecting 'ordinary Americans,'" the Washington Post reports.

• "A year after Mr. Obama made 'empathy' one of his main criteria in picking his first Supreme Court justice, he is avoiding the word, which became radioactive, as he picks his second nominee," the New York Times reports. "Instead, he says he wants someone with 'a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.'"

From this morning's Earlybird:

• "While President Obama said he plans to choose a Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens by late May, senators and aides said Wednesday that they expect him to move faster," CongressDailyAM (subscription) reports.

• "Obama on Wednesday called nine Judiciary Committee members -- including three Republicans -- to discuss the looming vacancy on the Supreme Court," Roll Call (subscription) reports.

• "Obama forcefully stated his desire to nominate a Supreme Court candidate who supports abortion rights, saying Wednesday that it is 'very important' to have a justice who interprets the Constitution as protecting individual rights, including women's," the Washington Post reports.

• The New York Times profiles appellate judge Diane Wood, who is reportedly on the administration's short list.

While President Obama plans to name a Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens by late May, senators and aides said they expect the pick sooner following what they called a positive meeting today.

Obama "indicated that he would hope to have the nominee to us a little earlier than last year. And last year was late May," said Senate Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., referring to the confirmation process for Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Aides involved in the issue said they do not expect Obama to wait until just before Memorial Day recess.

Sessions and Senate staffers briefed on the meeting called it a constructive, if general, exchange that could augur a less divisive Supreme Court confirmation process than expected. Disagreements over timing of the hearing and votes, however, appear likely.

Obama "asked that we try to move the nomination at a reasonable pace," Sessions told reporters. "And I told him that we would certainly do that." But Sessions said that if "disclosures of documents or controversies rise up," it could "slow things down."

Continue reading Sessions, Senate Aides: Meeting With Obama Went Well

President Obama said today he would nominate someone to the Supreme Court by the end of May, a timetable that he hopes will allow Senate confirmation by the start of the August congressional recess.

That timetable, which Obama disclosed at the start of an Oval Office meeting with key senators from both parties, would have a replacement for retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the bench for the start of the court's new term in October.

Both Obama and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said they hoped the process plays out along the same timeline for his first nominee, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She was nominated in late May last year and confirmed in early August.

Obama said both parties "worked very cooperatively on what I considered to be a smooth, civil, thoughtful nomination process" last year. "My hope is... that we can do the exact same thing this time. Last time, the nomination went up at the end of May. We are certainly going to meet that deadline and we hope maybe we can accelerate it a little bit so that we have some additional time."

Continue reading Obama Sets Timetable For Pick

From this morning's Earlybird:

• President Obama "will nominate a replacement to fill the Supreme Court seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens no later than May 26," The Hill reports.

• "Obama has begun interviewing potential Supreme Court nominees and" today "will urge top senators to confirm his choice in a timely fashion, a senior administration official said," the Wall Street Journal (subscription) reports.

• "In a major First Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that made it a crime to create or sell dogfight videos and other depictions of animal cruelty," the New York Times reports.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wished Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens a happy 90th birthday today with a speech praising the retiring justice and suggesting President Obama pick "someone like" Stevens to replace him.

Leahy, along with Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., will meet with Obama on Wednesday to discuss the nomination.

"Then, and in any private discussions, I will suggest that he pick someone who approaches every case with an open mind and a commitment to fairness," Leahy said.

The senator singled out for praise Stevens' opinions that upheld congressional power and limited executive influence. "He has brought to his opinions a keen understanding of the distinct roles set forth in our Constitution for courts and for the democratically-elected Congress," Leahy said. "He has maintained a fervent respect for both."

Leahy went on to cite Rasul v. Bush, where "the court held that our Federal courts have jurisdiction over detainees held by the government, even though they are not citizens of the United States," and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where it "concluded that our government has to follow our laws, including the Geneva Conventions, in trying prisoners detained at Guantanamo Bay."

Complete text, as prepared for delivery on the Senate floor, follows.

Continue reading Leahy Praises Stevens On 90th Birthday

Senate Democrats are warming up for a Supreme Court confirmation fight by sparring over other judicial nominees.

Democrats are pushing for confirmation of 22 nominees stalled on the Senate calendar and trying to highlight GOP obstruction. A few days after Republicans used a confirmation hearing to flay appellate court nominee Goodwin Liu over writings they call too liberal, Democrats on the Senate floor sought unanimous consent to confirm a series of judges, drawing GOP objections to all.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked for agreement to confirm Albert Diaz and James Wynn to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; Nancy Freudenthal as a Wyoming district judge; Denzil Marshall Jr. as a district judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas; and Timothy Black as a district judge in Ohio's Southern District. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., objected to each.

Sen. Claire McCasikill, D-Mo., then sought consent for about 15 stalled executive nominations, each of which Kyl blocked due to GOP holds.

Democrats have said they want to clear as many stalled judicial nominations as possible before President Obama nominates a replacement for retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.

As much as John Paul Stevens' retirement will alter the internal dynamic of the Supreme Court, one constant will remain: Anthony Kennedy as the swing voter between the liberal and conservative sides.

Yet the liberals' interaction with Kennedy will change once Stevens is gone. Stevens has been their leader, more senior than Kennedy, a man who has earned Kennedy's respect over the years they have spent together on the court, and -- not insignificantly -- from having served with distinction in the Navy during World War II. These are qualities that Stevens cannot pass on to a successor.

So the question for the court's remaining liberal members -- and perhaps most especially for President Obama, as he ponders a nominee to follow Stevens -- is this: What can they do to woo Kennedy's vote to their side as often as possible?

Subscribers to National Journal can read the full story here.

From this morning's Earlybird:

• "If President Obama nominates U.S. Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, social conservatives say they intend to make her rulings on abortion rights the primary point of contention," the Washington Post reports.

• The New York Times reports on the judicial paper trails of previous Supreme Court nominees and how the paper trails of the leading candidates could affect their nomination.

• Bloomberg News profiles appellate judge Merrick Garland, who is reportedly on the administration's short list.

Despite conservative angst over President Obama's looming Supreme Court nomination, a majority of respondents in our informal poll of SCOTUS-watchers predict that the court is more likely to move right than left with the departure of Justice John Paul Stevens.

Thirteen out of the 23 experts polled said that either in a small or large way, the high court will move right. Five predicted that there won't be any change, and three said it will move left. The remaining respondents said there would be no change at all, or just that it definitely won't move left.

We also asked respondents to recommend one person who they think would make a good nominee, whether or not that person's name has been floated. Names that were mentioned more than once include Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan and appellate judge Merrick Garland, who is also reportedly on the administration's short list.

See respondents' comments after the jump.

Continue reading Experts Predict: Court Will Move Right

Everyone thinks that she's on the short list. But should Solicitor General Elena Kagan be nominated and win confirmation to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens she would face a problem that other Supreme Court nominees wouldn't: removing herself from considering a slew of cases that she has dealt with at the Justice Department.

Thurgood Marshall, who was the most recent solicitor general to reach the high court, recused himself from 98 of the 171 cases that the justices decided in the 1967-68 term, or 57 percent of the total, notes Ed Whelan, author of the Bench Memos blog.

Today, Whelan says, the federal government participates in an even higher percentage of judicial disputes, and so as Uncle Sam's lawyer, Kagan would have to remove herself from participating in even more cases than Marshall did. Because the justices often decide contentious cases 5-4, her recusals could wind up deadlocking the Court on some hot-button issues.

From this morning's Earlybird:

• "A look at" Elena Kagan's "service as solicitor general... provides unusually direct insights into how she would interact with her new colleagues were she" nominated to the Supreme Court, the New York Times reports.

Last year, as Sen. Arlen Specter reviewed the nomination of Elena Kagan to be solicitor general, he was frustrated. As the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Specter concluded that the Harvard Law School dean had ducked questions that he saw as important for senators to cast an informed vote on her nomination. He voted against her confirmation.

Today, Kagan is on the widely circulated short list to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Should she get the nod, she's likely to continue to avoid questions that she contends might come before the court. And a lack of responsiveness by any nominee is almost certain to be a line of attack used by critics trying to shoot a nomination down.

That scenario puts the ever-irascible Specter in an unusual spot since he switched parties last year to become a Democrat. Today, he faces a difficult bid to be re-elected to a sixth term. Might he seriously consider a vote against President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court?

Continue reading Specter v. Kagan: A Year Later

From this morning's Earlybird:

• "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; and Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., have been invited to" an "April 21 meeting at the White House" to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy with President Obama, NationalJournal.com reports.

• "Democratic senators are urging" Obama "to abandon any hope of winning broad Republican support for his upcoming Supreme Court pick -- and to nominate, instead, a dominant liberal voice who will counteract the current conservative majority," Politico reports.

• "Senate Republicans on Tuesday warned" Obama "he'll face serious opposition to his Supreme Court nomination if he uses a landmark campaign finance case as a litmus test for a nominee," The Hill reports.

• Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., "two senators with significant legal backgrounds who have been mentioned as possible Supreme Court nominees, took themselves out of the running Tuesday," The Hill reports.

No more boring Supreme Court nominees, plead Hotline editors John Mercurio and Amy Walter in today's edition of Hotline TV. In search of an exciting pick, Walter and Mercurio offer up their own shortlist of grand political gestures.

Their "boring" favorite in the SCOTUS race is saved for last.

Updated at 4:50 p.m.

President Obama will meet with Senate leaders from both parties next week to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy he must fill, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; and Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., have been invited to the April 21 meeting at the White House, Gibbs said in a statement.

The meeting will be the first of its kind since Justice John Paul Stevens announced he would retire at the end of the court's term, which is likely to be in June. Obama has offered no timetable for announcing his choice, but White House officials and lawmakers expect him to move quickly, with a goal of having the new justice on the bench when the court's new term begins in October.

Hours before the meeting was announced, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., suggested Obama's nominee could run into strong Republican opposition if the president used a recent campaign-finance ruling or any other politically charged topic as a litmus test for his nominee.

Kyl's comments on the Senate floor today followed reports that Obama might be looking for a justice willing to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations are permitted to directly fund political campaigns. Stevens dissented in the 5-4 decision earlier this year, so a like-minded replacement wouldn't tip the balance.

Still, Kyl said, "You don't go on the bench [saying] 'I'm always going to be against the big guy.'" He did not directly say the GOP would filibuster a nominee, but the comments were in the context of when a filibuster would be justified.

One senator not on the list is former Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Nor, Hatch said, has the White House consulted him. He called that a mistake.

"Past presidents have called me to advise on nominees, and I'm not complaining, but Obama would benefit if he did," Hatch said. "There's a lot of irritation with the desire to do things the partisan way. I can tell you this, Clinton called me on a lot of things and I always helped. I like this president, personally, and would like to help him as well."

As White House Counsel Bob Bauer and former communications director Anita Dunn lead the team tasked with picking a new justice, confirmability is a key consideration. And, for many of the top contenders, there's already a hint as to how they would do in the Senate.

Take Solicitor General Elena Kagan, confirmed as the government's lead attorney last March by a 61-31 vote. If President Obama picks her, she will enter confirmation hearings having received yes votes from Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Orrin Hatch,R-Utah, Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

She would have more room to grow, as well. A total of four Democratic senators did not vote on her nomination, though that number includes Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who has since passed away. Kagan could be in a position to get as many as 67 votes, assuming every Republican voted the same way they did last time.

Of course, a Supreme Court nomination is much different from any other appointment, and Republicans could have an easy way out of voting in her favor a second time around. Still, earlier confirmation votes are a good measure of the ceiling one candidate might reach.

Federal Judge Merrick Garland, another short-list finalist, won confirmation by a wider 76-23 margin when he was appointed in 1997. There's been a lot of turnover in the Senate since then, but Sens. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, Kit Bond, R-Mo., Thad Cochran, R-Miss., Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., John McCain, R-Ariz., and Pat Roberts, R-Kan., joined Collins, Hatch, Lugar and Snowe in supporting his nomination.

Federal Judge Diane Wood and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the final two members on most short lists, have an easier time. Both their nominations -- Wood in 1995, Napolitano's in 2009 -- sailed through the Senate with unanimous consent.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., suggested President Obama's next Supreme Court choice would run into strong Republican opposition if he used a recent campaign-finance ruling or any other politically charged topic as a litmus test.

Kyl's comments on the floor today followed reports that Obama might be looking for a justice willing to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling that corporations are permitted to fund political campaigns. "You don't go on the bench [saying] 'I'm always going to be against the big guy,'" Kyl said. He did not directly say the GOP would filibuster a nominee, but the comments were in the context of when a filibuster would be justified.

During the Supreme Court confirmation process last year for Sonia Sotomayor, NationalJournal.com created a series of graphics based on data compiled by Lee Epstein of Northwestern University and her colleagues, along with Jeffrey Segal of Stony Brook University. Examining this data again in the context of Justice John Paul Stevens' retirement sheds light on what's at stake for President Obama and conservatives in the coming confirmation fight -- and may provide some clues as to who the nominee will be.

Ideology

In Jeffrey Segal's analysis of nomination news coverage, Justice Stevens ranked as the 12th most conservative nominee since the FDR era as perceived by media accounts -- ahead of several other Republican court picks, including Reagan nominees Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. (On the chart below, 0.0 indicates most conservative and 1.0 most liberal.)

Continue reading In Context: Stevens And His Replacement

From this morning's Earlybird:

• "To the list of candidates President Obama is considering for the Supreme Court, strike this name: Hillary Rodham Clinton. But add these: Sidney Thomas, Janet Napolitano, Jennifer Granholm and Leah Ward Sears," the New York Times reports.

• "Long the stuff of dry inside-the-Beltway machinations, campaign finance law may take center stage this summer during the confirmation of" Obama's "Supreme Court nominee, thanks to the court's decision earlier this year to undo a century's worth of corporate restrictions," Roll Call (subscription) reports.

• "Democrats hope to turn the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings into a referendum of sorts on controversial recent decisions by the Roberts court -- portraying the conservative majority as a judicial Goliath trampling the rights of average Americans," Politico reports.

• "Conservative groups preparing to fight" Obama "over his next Supreme Court nomination are trying to recruit tea party activists to their cause, hoping their enthusiasm will help them beat back any nominee that could be too liberal for their taste," AP reports.

• "Liberal activist groups are pushing back against speculation that" Obama "will nominate a centrist to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court," The Hill reports.

• The New York Times reports on how the tussle over appellate court nominee Goodwin Liu could be a precursor to the partisan battles over the Supreme Court nomination.

The nomination process to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court could provide an opportunity for the Tea Party to expand its platform -- whether all of the supporters of the movement like it or not.

While many Tea Party organizations shy away from formally taking on issues outside of fiscal responsibility and limited government, there are signs that the conservative views of the Tea Party may extend to the social issues that occupy most nomination battles. If this is indeed the case, a liberal court nominee could spur protest from the movement on many grounds, including abortion rights, gay marriage and immigration.

When Justice Sonya Sotomayor was nominated last May, Tea Party groups were just coming off of their first nationwide event, the Tax Day Tea Parties. When confirmation hearings were being held in the summer, the groups were mounting opposition to health care reform. Even if the Tea Party had launched a campaign against Sotomayor, it wasn't until the town hall protests of August that the Tea Party had the ear of the public.

This time around it could be different. Now, with national media examining how this band of political neophytes might impact the makeup of the House and Senate, the Tea Party supporters could seize the spotlight in an attempt to influence the makeup of the nation's highest court as well.

But could such a move risk fracturing the movement? A USA Today/Gallup poll found that a majority of Tea Partiers don't consider themselves Republicans -- a fact that many in the movement have used to bolster its "big tent" image. And the conservative Winston Group found that 4 in 10 Tea Party members are Democrats or independents. But this could just be a matter of nomenclature, since other surveys, like one from the University of Washington, have found that the movement attracts more conservatives. If that's the case, then a SCOTUS fight could actually strengthen the movement.

One thing is fairly certain: Tea Party members oppose Obama, and therefore might be inclined to be critical of his Supreme Court pick. Here are five issues that members of the Tea Party could likely weigh in on as the nomination process proceeds:

Health Care Reform
The ongoing health care controversy could bring Republicans and Tea Party activists together during confirmation hearings. "I'd expect the constitutionality of federally enforcing the purchase of a good or service to enter the debate," GOP strategist Mindy Finn told Mother Jones. Fourteen states have filed lawsuits against the federal government challenging the new law's individual mandate.

Immigration
Immigration is one social issue that the Tea Party has directly embraced. Rallies against "amnesty" will be held this week under the banner of the Tea Party movement. In the Arizona Senate race, immigration policy marks a key point of contention between Republican John McCain and his primary opponent, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, whom Tea Party activists are rallying behind. In Texas, a Tea Party Patriots coordinator is eyeing opposition to immigration reform as the next frontier for Tea Party activism.

Abortion Rights
While Tea Party leaders might hedge on discussing abortion, there's no denying the anti-abortion signs and t-shirts sold at events. Many prominent Tea Party allies -- like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. -- are strong opponents of abortion rights. Tea Party Nation opposed abortion language in health care reform legislation, and Our Country Deserves Better PAC helped drive Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., out of office -- though ostensibly for his vote on health care, not for his compromise on abortion.

Gun Rights
Guns have played a prominent role in critics' attempts to disparage the Tea Party movement and paint activists as short-tempered gun-toters who should not be taken seriously. But activists haven't been shy about sporting National Rifle Association gear or, in some cases, bringing their guns to protests and rallies. Tea Party ally Marco Rubio has defended Tea Partiers' right to bring guns to rallies. The Tea Party could feel the need to defend 2nd Amendment rights, particularly because gun owners have been feeling vulnerable under Obama.

Gay Marriage
Though members of the Tea Party deny allegations that they shouted anti-gay slurs at Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Tea Party activists have sent other signals suggesting they'd take issue with a SCOTUS nominee who would back gay marriage. Groups in the Tea Party Movement have, on more than one occasion, partnered with Family Research Council, which opposes gay marriage. At one recent Tea Party rally in Michigan, a sponsor was selling "Straight Pride" T-shirts to raise money for the movement. And at the Tea Party Nation's national convention, Baptist pastor Rick Scarborough, a well-known opponent of gay marriage, was a featured speaker.

Back in Washington today, key senators are weighing in on the upcoming Supreme Court nomination, with Majority Whip Richard Durbin, a Judiciary Committee member, saying he would prefer a nominee with electoral experience.

"I'd like to see a court with somebody on it who's actually run for office," Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters. "It's been a long time.... Of course judicial experience is important, but some of those other experiences in life... are pretty important for Supreme Court justices."

Durbin said electoral experience might have led to a different ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which Democrats say will allow unfettered spending by corporations to alter the political process. The court hasn't had an ex-legislator since Sandra Day O'Connor, a former Arizona state senator.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for a nominee with "extensive real-world legal experience" in floor remarks on the nomination. McConnell also said the nominee should have "a demonstrated commitment to the rule of law."

McConnell joined other GOP lawmakers in arguing that the confirmation process of Justice Sonia Sotomayor resulted in the rejection of President Obama's "empathy standard."

And he said, "Once the president submits his nominee, Senate Republicans will diligently review his or her record so the American people can be confident that they'll be able to fulfill the judicial oath, namely to administer justice without respect to persons and to do right by the poor and by the rich. I am hopeful that at the end of the day, I and other Republicans will be convinced that the nominee will be able to do so."

We culled news reports over the weekend to bring you the most comprehensive list of names President Obama might consider for Justice John Paul Stevens' Supreme Court seat.

The long list, which includes anyone named in a media report this weekend, presented in alphabetical order, is after the jump.

Continue reading The Supreme Court Long List

Pundits debate whether a major fight will ensue this summer over President Obama's Supreme Court pick, and discuss their favorite candidates from the shortlist:

A year after the "empathy" standard for Supreme Court nominees became a hot topic, Sen. Ben Cardin says President Obama should put it behind him.

The Maryland Democrat was asked recently about comments by fellow Senate Judiciary Committee member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that there's been "a near-universal rejection of President Obama's empathy standard, the flawed notion that judges should allow personal feelings, political opinions, and social views to guide judicial decision-making."

Cardin's take: "My advice to Obama would be pick the best person. He shouldn't worry about satisfying anyone's litmus test. Because there shouldn't be a litmus test for the nominee." The real activism on the court, he said, has come from conservatives "giving power to those who already have power, and making it, I think, just the reverse of what the court should be doing."

Cardin spoke about that and other potential hot spots for the new nominee with NationalJournal.com. Edited excerpts follow.

Continue reading Cardin: 'Pick The Best Person'

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy said today there are two conditions for filling the Supreme Court vacancy before the start of the court's fall session, and one of them has already been met. The first step, he said, was the timing of Justice John Paul Stevens' retirement announcement. Leahy suggested on MSNBC's "Daily Rundown" that he had something to do with that.

"I had met with Justice Stevens several weeks ago and we talked about the possibility of his retirement ... and I had urged him at the time to announce it in April to give the president more time, and that's what he did," Leahy said.

The second key, according to Leahy, is a quick nomination by President Obama. While he expects the president to move quickly, he is also urging that Obama "look outside the judicial monastery, at least consider somebody from outside there."

Not only does Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, her name has also been floated as a possible pick to be President Obama's second Supreme Court nominee.

After Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement Friday, Klobuchar spoke with National Journal.com about the nomination process, the midterm implications of a possible confirmation battle, and why she would decline to accept the honor if nominated.

Continue reading Klobuchar: 'I Need To Stay In My Job'

In our informal poll of court-watchers taken Friday, respondents overwhelmingly predicted that Solicitor General Elena Kagan will be President Obama's pick to replace Justice John Paul Stevens.

Kagan was interviewed by Obama last year before he ultimately selected Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter. The other two front-runners in our poll are -- not surprisingly -- federal appellate court judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland. Wood also interviewed with Obama during the first go-round. "I would be very surprised if the president chose someone outside these three candidates," one respondent wrote.

We asked our experts to rank the five nominees they think Obama is most likely to pick. Their first-place picks received five points, second-place received four points and so on. In order to encourage frank and open speculation, respondents were allowed to reply anonymously.

After the jump, see the results, other names mentioned, comments from the respondents and a list of the respondents.

Continue reading The Experts Predict: Kagan Will Be Pick

From this morning's Earlybird:

• "The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee predicted on Sunday that the Senate would confirm a replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens this summer, but his Republican counterpart would not rule out the use of a filibuster if President Obama were to nominate someone who was 'clearly outside the mainstream,'" the New York Times reports.

• "With no nominee to scrutinize, Republicans were on the defensive Sunday over the possible use of a filibuster against" Obama's "upcoming Supreme Court pick -- saying they wouldn't go nuclear unless they really, really had to," Politico reports.

• "Stevens's retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court may remind progressive legal groups that reshaping the judiciary ranks low on" Obama's "priority list," Bloomberg News reports.

• "Senate Democratic leaders will push an agenda topped by a banking reform bill over the seven-week work period before Memorial Day," The Hill reports. "Stevens' retirement announcement Friday isn't likely to derail the Democratic agenda in the upper chamber, since" Obama's "nominee will be sent first to the Judiciary Committee. Obama has said he will select a nominee within weeks."

The Senate Judiciary Committee will soon be focused on a Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring justice John Paul Stevens. After the battle they went through last year with Sonia Sotomayor, what can they expect this time?

Ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said this nomination would be closely watched since the American public are "rightly concerned about the future of our judiciary" after the confirmation of Sotomayor. "The product of her confirmation hearing was a near-universal rejection of President Obama's empathy standard, the flawed notion that judges should allow personal feelings, political opinions, and social views to guide judicial decision-making." Sessions rejected that standard as "an anti-democratic abuse of power."

Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin took exception, saying Obama "shouldn't worry about satisfying anybody else's litmus test."

"You want a justice who understands that the decisions of the Supreme Court affect people's lives," Cardin told NationalJournal.com. "But you need to understand there's a limit on how much that impacts where the law takes them."

Cardin said he would not speculate about potential nominees before having a chance to discuss them with the president. But he expected that Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., would set up a schedule that would have the new nominee confirmed before November's midterm elections.

"Most Americans want to see a court that respects legal precedent, and the most activism we've seen has come from, basically, those characterized as conservative justices who have reversed the prior decisions of the court," Cardin said. "I think the labels are going to be something people don't want to hear."

Continue reading Senate Judiciary Committee Preps For Nomination

Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, and Anthony Kennedy arrive for the swearing-in ceremony of President-elect George W. Bush on January 20, 2001. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)

See below some of the best Web photo galleries capturing the life and career of retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, including his nomination by President Ford in 1975, the swearing-in of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005, the inaugurations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and throwing out the first pitch at Wrigley Field for his beloved Chicago Cubs.

Links to photo galleries after the jump:

Continue reading Stevens' Career In Pictures

After last year's battle over the confirmation of the Supreme Court's first Latina justice, are groups on both sides of the debate now warming to a white male from Harvard Law School?

Left- and right-leaning experts both have positive things to say about Merrick Garland, a 57-year-old D.C. appellate court judge. They also say he would be a politically easy choice for President Obama.

Doug Kendall, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, said Garland "deserves his place on the Obama shortlist," describing him as "a brilliant judge and an eloquent spokesperson who would provide a decisive victory at a critical time for President Obama." He didn't go so far to endorse him as a nominee though.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the right-wing Judicial Crisis Network, said the time frame to select and confirm a nominee is shorter than it could have been given the fact that Justice John Paul Stevens will retire at the end of the term instead of once the next justice is confirmed. And because of that, Severino said, "I would hope Merrick Garland would be first on his list or else it will be a very ugly summer."

Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, said Garland "is the best nominee Republicans can hope for. I think his selection would be a significant step toward resolving the judicial wars."

Americans' interest in a successor to John Paul Stevens is gathering mostly around Merrick Garland and Elena Kagan, if you believe Google searches are a measure of our collective curiosities.

The popular search engine's list of "hot searches" in the U.S. shows Garland is now the No. 3 top search, with Kagan at No. 4. The "hottness" of both is rated "volcanic," the highest rating from Google Trends. It's not often that an appellate court judge and the solicitor general are buzzworthy, so it's worth noting on the rare occasion it happens.

None of the other names floated as potential replacements made Google's list -- so far.

(Screenshot from Google)

Updated at 4:00 p.m.

Just hours after Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement, President Obama said he will select a Supreme Court nominee in the "coming weeks."

"While we cannot replace Justice Stevens' experience or wisdom, I will seek someone in the coming weeks with similar qualities -- an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people," Obama said today in the Rose Garden.

Obama referenced the letter Stevens sent to the White House this morning that touched on the importance of confirming someone before the fall term begins in October. "I will move quickly to name a nominee, as I did with Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor," Obama said.

Last spring, a little more than three weeks elapsed between David Souter's retirement announcement and Obama's selection of Sotomayor: May 1 to May 26.

Leading contenders for the new vacancy are said to include Solicitor General Elena Kagan and appellate judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland. Already, conservative groups have attempted to attack Kagan for memos she wrote during her time in the Clinton administration, and Republicans have said they will not rule out filibustering a nominee.

Here is the confirmation timeline for Sotomayor; after the jump, see the other confirmation timelines of the last 30 years.

Continue reading Obama: Nomination In 'Coming Weeks'

Is Merrick Garland the key to a low-stress Supreme Court transition?

Speaking before an audience of Hill staffers and think-tankers at a Federalist Society event this morning, two influential legal commentators offered a preview of the chatter likely to surround this summer's battle. While they were unable to settle on a replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens that both the left and right could support, they agreed that the D.C. Circuit judge would spark the least fight.

"I think Garland is the best nominee that Republicans could hope for," said Ed Whelan, president of the right-leaning Ethics and Public Policy Center. "I think his selection would be a significant step toward resolving the judicial wars."

When it came to the other two candidates cited most frequently in early handicapping -- appellate judge Diane Wood and Solicitor General Elena Kagan -- Whelan was distinctly less enthusiastic.

"On a broad range of culture war issues, Wood would be a hard-left justice," Whelan said, citing past decisions related to abortion, gay marriage, "don't ask, don't tell" and the citing of international law in U.S. courts. "She combines this inflammatory record with what I think Obama would find a boring background," he added. And while he acknowledged that Kagan may face more trouble from the left than the right, Whelan was hardly more willing to give her his endorsement.

Whelan's counterpart, the New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen, pressed him repeatedly to look at the candidates holistically rather than focusing on specific "outliers." "These are not polarizing candidates by any standards," he said, adding that "if we're going to Bork Garland or Kagan, it would be like denouncing Stevens as a crazy conservative if he were nominated today."

Continue reading Whelan: Garland Pick Could Calm Right

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's oldest member, announced his retirement today, giving President Obama his second high court appointment and setting the stage for a contentious confirmation battle in the Senate this summer.

The leader of the liberal bloc of four justices, just 11 days short of his 90th birthday, recently signaled his intent to step down soon to assure that Obama would name his replacement.

The announcement came in a 67-word letter delivered to the White House at 10:30 a.m. and relayed by White House Counsel Bob Bauer to the president, who was aboard Air Force One returning from Prague.

For the president, the court vacancy presents another challenge to his hopes to be seen as focusing on jobs and the economy now that the lengthy battle over health care is finished. The White House has a list of potential justices left over from last year's nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. But a nomination battle risks crowding out other issues.

Continue reading Stevens' Exit Sets Stage For Fight

Updated at 5:00 p.m.

Political analysts discuss Justice John Paul Stevens' legacy and the confimation battle ahead:

Charles Lane: "Stevens epitomized judicial temperament. And by that I mean he always took care to preserve both the appearance and reality of his own impartiality."

Andrew Cohen: "He was, undoubtedly, President Gerald Ford's greatest legacy -- the yin to the yang that was his pardon of Richard M. Nixon." Stevens "also becomes another example, a stirring one given his recent court opinions, of how decades on the Court seems to weaken the conservative resolve of old-fashioned Rockefeller Republicans."

Tunku Varadarajan: "Since any new judge is likely to be measured against the dignity and sagacity of Stevens, the president would be ill advised to go for an egregious ideologue."

Chris Cillizza: "The basic Democratic argument will be that Stevens was a liberal vote and, therefore, it shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone that President Obama will nominate someone with a similar worldview to replace him on the Court.... Republicans, who obviously have no influence over the pick, will almost certainly try to cast whoever gets the nod as out of the mainstream."

Continue reading Pundits On Stevens' Retirement

Updated at 4:50 p.m.

Politicians and others are wishing Justice John Paul Stevens well as he prepares to leave the Supreme Court -- and they're getting in some commentary on the coming nomination process.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he is "confident that President Obama will use the same wisdom that he showed with his nomination of Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor and name a well-qualified successor. I encourage my Republican colleagues to join us in conducting fair, respectful hearings and swift confirmation of the president's nominee."

Top Republican Mitch McConnell commends Stevens "for his lifelong commitment to public service, from his early days fighting corruption in Chicago to his work in naval intelligence during the Second World War to his more than three decades on the nation's highest court. Even if Justice Stevens' liberalism has led to many decisions I oppose, I respect his devotion to the institution and the gentlemanly manner in which he always carried out his work."

Click here for a wrap-up on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will be the first legislative panel to handle the nomination.

"Justice Stevens reveres the Court, which is why in announcing his retirement he gave President Obama and the Senate the time to nominate his successor and fill the vacancy before the coming October session," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "We should do so with civility and purpose. This will be a test of the Senate at a time when this and other huge, unavoidable legislative challenges demand action."

Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, said that "once President Obama has made a decision on a nominee, I look forward to treating his nominee fairly and reviewing their impartiality, integrity, legal expertise and judicial temperament."

Florida's Republican senatorial primary rivals each weighed in. Gov. Charlie Crist urges Obama "to pick someone who, in the mold of Chief Justice [John] Roberts and Justice [Samuel] Alito, strictly interprets the rule of law and does not legislate from the bench." Marco Rubio said he hopes Obama "will nominate someone who not only has the credentials but also understands that the Constitution is a document that exists to safeguard fundamental rights and limit governmental power.... If the Constitution is a living and breathing document, it will stand for whatever the people in power say it stands for on any given day."

Continue reading Roundup: Lawmakers And Activists On Stevens

Updated at 12:45 p.m.

After 34 years of service in the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, announced his retirement today. Here is a roundup of early reaction as President Obama prepares to make his second Supreme Court nomination in as many years.

"Confronted with a court far more conservative than the one he joined, Justice Stevens showed the world what his colleagues already knew: that beneath his amiable manner lay a canny strategist and master tactician, qualities he used to win victories that a simple liberal-conservative head count would make appear impossible," the New York Times salutes.

ABC News also applauds the departing judge: "Although nominated by Republican President Gerald Ford in 1975, Stevens became a hero to liberals voting to limit the use of the death penalty, uphold affirmative action, broaden the core holding of Roe v. Wade and argue for a strict separation of church and state."

Hotline On Call remembers Stevens' 90-page dissent to Citizens United v. FEC: "Stevens has for years used his power as the most senior associate justice to try and build consensus against the Court's conservative wing."

Fox News reports: "In recent years, Stevens maintained that his conservative principles never changed during his time on the Court. Rather it was the justices around him and perhaps the country too that became more conservative than he."

The Washington Post reports that Stevens' "retirement is not a surprise and the White House has been preparing for the opening." But another Post article notes that "a confirmation battle could sidetrack Democratic plans to focus on the economy and job creation ahead of November's congressional elections in which Republicans are hoping to regain control of Congress."

Continue reading Roundup: Hailing Stevens, Looking Ahead

The solicitor general is the "prohibitive front-runner," wrote Tom Goldstein, a leading Supreme Court litigator and the founder of Scotusblog, in a widely read February 23 piece on his website. I would strike "prohibitive."

Kagan's assets include her outstanding record as a professor and dean at Harvard Law School, where she brought in some conservative professors and calmed the school's politically contentious faculty; her experience as a domestic policy aide in the Clinton White House; her age (only 49); and -- crucially -- her careful avoidance of a paper trail of controversial statements for critics to attack.

Indeed, Goldstein wrote, "I don't know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade."

The one issue that could slow down Kagan's confirmation is her impassioned effort as dean to bar military recruiting on campus to protest the law banning openly gay people from serving in the military, which she called "a moral injustice of the first order."

Kagan carried this opposition to the point of joining a 2005 amicus brief whose strained interpretation of a law denying federal funding to institutions that discriminate against military recruiters would -- the Supreme Court held in an 8-0 decision -- have rendered the statute "largely meaningless." This helps to explain the 31 Republican votes against confirming her as solicitor general.

Many liberal critics are unhappy with Kagan's arguments as solicitor general supporting the "state secrets" doctrine, detentions without trial, and other broad Obama claims of executive power to fight terrorism -- some of them similar to the Bush policies that liberals hate. But their angst would be no obstacle to confirmation.

Continue reading Elena Kagan

She appears to be the most liberal of the shortlisters and is applauded in progressive circles for going toe-to-toe with the conservative intellectual heavyweights on her court. For this reason, she might have the bumpiest confirmation.

Wood, 59, is highly respected for her intellectual firepower, careful preparation, and clear thinking and expression. She was won praise from some conservative as well as liberal colleagues and from lawyers appearing before her.

Before President Clinton put her on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 1995, she was a University of Chicago law professor -- and working mother without benefit of pregnancy leave -- and a high-ranking antitrust expert in the Clinton Justice Department.

Some conservatives have assailed her as a hard-left judicial culture warrior whose passion for abortion rights is so strong that (they contend) she has disregarded Supreme Court precedents; and whose writings suggest that she might indeed strip "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and make same-sex marriage a constitutional right.

Still, Wood's overall record may be no more liberal than that of Stevens. She would be confirmed eventually, but she would surely draw more Republican fire than would Kagan or Napolitano, and much more than Garland.

Continue reading Diane Wood

Another intellectually stellar, more moderate Democrat with no apparent land mines in his paper trail and the respect of Republican colleagues and senators alike, the 57-year-old Garland would be the easiest of the four to confirm by far.

In anonymous surveys of lawyers arguing before him, he has won glowing reviews as highly intelligent, open-minded, evenhanded, fair to all parties, and extraordinarily clear and thorough in his opinions.

"After only Judge Wood, D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland is the most respected Democratic appointee now on the bench," as well as the most confirmable, Scotusblog founder Tom Goldstein wrote. I rank Garland above Wood, given my preference for restrained, moderate consensus-builders. (Disclosure: Garland and I were Harvard Law School classmates and are friends.)

Among Garland's assets are his 1989 decision to leave a lucrative law partnership to become a federal prosecutor in D.C.; his supervision of a range of major civil, criminal, and national security matters in the Clinton Justice Department, including the initial proceedings against Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh; and his skill at finding common ground with colleagues across the ideological spectrum. Conservative bench mates have joined logically compelling Garland opinions on ideologically divisive issues.

All of this was not enough to put Garland on Obama's all-woman shortlist in 2009. This year, the political pressure to pick another woman or a person of color is not as great. But would Obama choose a white male nominee who seems clearly less liberal than Stevens?

Continue reading Merrick Garland

Some media handicappers have written off her prospects because of two much-ridiculed gaffes: saying that "the system worked" after the near-success of a suicide bomber's attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day, and speaking earlier of terrorist attacks as "man-caused disasters."

But don't count the tough, no-nonsense Napolitano out; these lapses were out of character. Obama thinks highly of her, and "if the president is looking for someone who is not a Court of Appeals judge like all current members of the Court, she would be at the top of the list," thanks to her broad political experience, says a source familiar with the selection process and Obama's thinking.

Before taking over at Homeland Security, the 52-year-old Napolitano was a federal prosecutor, then Clinton's U.S. attorney in Arizona, and subsequently the elected attorney general and governor of Arizona. She worked effectively with, and often against, the Republican state Legislature, and she won re-election by a wide margin in 2006 by taking centrist, tough-on-crime positions and pushing programs for children that appealed to Republican women.

Continue reading Janet Napolitano

The Supreme Court berth that Justice John Paul Stevens is leaving has been held by only three men going back almost a century.

Stevens joined the court in 1975, replacing William Douglas. Douglas was the last remaining justice nominated by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; he was confirmed in 1939. Before him, the position was held by Louis Brandeis, a Woodrow Wilson nominee who was confirmed in 1916. Average length of service for the three of them: 31.3 years.

The next candidate will be the 159th nominee in Supreme Court history. CongressDaily has assembled a convenient guide to the 158 who have come before.

Justice John Paul Stevens is seated at center during a photo session at the Supreme Court. (Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will step down after more than three decades on the bench, he said Friday, giving President Obama the opportunity to appoint a new member of the court's liberal wing.

Stevens has been hinting he would retire for months. He hired just one clerk for the next term and gave several interviews to national news outlets in which he confirmed he would step down within Obama's term. The anchor of the liberal wing will turn 90 on April 20; he has served since Gerald Ford appointed him in 1975.

Though he is known for his more liberal views, Stevens has for years used his power as the most senior associate justice to try and build consensus against the court's conservative wing. But he has voiced alarm over several decisions of late that he felt went too far; earlier this year, he authored a 90-page dissent to Citizens United v. FEC and took the unusual step of reading from his opinion from the bench.

Stevens' retirement will set off a summer battle between the White House and conservative activists over another high court opening.

Leading contenders for the post are said to include Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Appeals Court judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland. Already, conservative groups have attempted to attack Kagan for memos she wrote during her time in the Clinton administration, and Republicans have said they will not rule out filibustering a nominee.

If Kagan is Obama's pick, expect quick calls for documents she wrote while serving in the Clinton administration, which are still locked up at Clinton's presidential library.