Recently in Commentary Category
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.
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.
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.
In recognition of the political theater that is a Supreme Court confirmation hearing -- on the part of nominee and senators alike -- NationalJournal.com asked more than a dozen legal experts to grade key players' performances this week in Hart 216. Most of the poll respondents attended the hearings and did some form of coverage, whether it was live-blogging, partisan tweeting or traditional news reporting.
The experts graded nominee Sonia Sotomayor and a handful of senators: Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.; and committee members Al Franken, D-Minn., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Arlen Specter, D-Pa. Who got the best reviews? The two newcomers, Sotomayor and Franken, who each got B averages. The committee's veterans, Leahy and Specter, scored the lowest, at C+. The two Republicans, Sessions and Graham, each got a B-.
Poll respondents were: Tony Mauro, National Law Journal reporter; Dahlia Lithwick, Slate senior editor; Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog and Supreme Court litigator at Akin Gump; Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice; William Marshall, University of North Carolina law professor; Doug Kendall, founder and president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; Ellis Cose, Newsweek columnist; Leonard Leo, Federalist Society executive vice president; Cristina Rodriguez, New York University law professor; Carl Tobias, University of Richmond law professor; Wendy Long, general counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network; Kristina Moore, who was covering the hearings for SCOTUSblog; and National Journal's own Stuart Taylor Jr. In order to encourage frank and open speculation, contributors were given anonymity.
After the jump, see some highlighted grades and responses.
Continue reading Making The Grade: Experts Evaluate Hearing Performances
Where will Republican senators focus their attention in Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings? And, after all is said and done next week, will the GOP seek a delay?
In NationalJournal.com's poll of several Supreme Court observers, the Ricci v. DeStefano discrimination case and the Maloney v. Cuomo Second Amendment case were judged most likely to face scrutiny. The 10 experts in the survey seem to be on the same page as Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who has included on his list of witnesses two plaintiffs from the Ricci case -- Frank Ricci and Ben Vargas -- as well as former National Rifle Association President Sandy Froman.
The experts are split right down the middle as to whether Republicans will seek a delay. They all agree on one thing, though: The move wouldn't succeed, considering the large Democratic majority.
NationalJournal.com asked the experts to rank what issues, out of the following seven, Republican senators will likely focus on: Ricci; Maloney; the Didden v. Village of Port Chester property rights case; Sotomayor's involvement with a Puerto Rican civil rights group; her "wise Latina woman" comment; her remark that Court of Appeals is "where policy is made"; and abortion.
We then weighted the responses, with seven points for a first-place selection down to one point for seventh place. When respondents didn't rank issues, we simply didn't give those issues a point.
Not surprisingly, Ricci was at the top of most experts' lists: six out of 10, with a total of 58 points. The Maloney case (a three-judge panel opinion Sotomayor sat on that affirmed a lower court's ruling that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states) came in second with 49 points. The other race-oriented issues -- her "wise Latina woman" remark and her involvement in the group now known as LatinoJustice PRLDEF -- were the next most popular ones, coming in with 41 and 37 points, respectively. Despite abortion's traditional role as a hot-button judicial issue, it came in last with only 20 points. Most experts listed it last or not at all.
Poll respondents were: Dahlia Lithwick, Slate senior editor; Paul Cassell, University of Utah law professor and Volokh Conspiracy blogger; Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog and Supreme Court litigator at Akin Gump; Adam White, D.C. lawyer; William Marshall, University of North Carolina law professor; Doug Kendall, founder and president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; Cristina Rodriguez, New York University law professor; Carl Tobias, University of Richmond law professor; Wendy Long, general counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network; and National Journal's own Stuart Taylor Jr. In order to encourage frank and open speculation, contributors were given anonymity.
After the jump, see experts' explanations for their rankings, divided up by issue, and their comments on whether the GOP will seek a delay.
Interest groups across the political spectrum were ready for the Supreme Court's Ricci v. DeStefano ruling this morning. With many court observers expecting a reversal or remand, a variety of groups involved in Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation battle were scheduling conference calls hours after the ruling came down and lining up experts to talk about what impact the case might have on both the imminent hearings and employment law more generally.
After the jump, we've rounded up reaction from several interest group leaders who have been prominent in the SCOTUS debate so far.
What cases, other than the already divisive Ricci v. DeStefano, will come to the fore during Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings? NationalJournal.com polled several Supreme Court observers for their take on this question, and on which Judiciary Committee Republican will be the toughest questioner.
The most popular response to our first question was the property rights case Didden v. Port Chester, in which Sotomayor affirmed a lower court's ruling by applying the Supreme Court's controversial 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. (The New York Times has more on the Didden case here.)
On the second question, the most popular choice was Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions as the senator most likely to subject the nominee to tough questioning.
See responses after the jump.
Poll respondents were: Tony Mauro, National Law Journal reporter; Dahlia Lithwick, Slate senior editor; Paul Cassell, University of Utah law professor and Volokh Conspiracy blogger; Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog and Supreme Court litigator at Akin Gump; William Marshall, University of North Carolina law professor; Doug Kendall, founder and president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; Cristina Rodriguez, New York University law professor; Christopher Eisgruber, Princeton University provost; Bradley Joondeph, Santa Clara University law professor; Carl Tobias, University of Richmond law professor; and National Journal's own Stuart Taylor Jr. In order to encourage frank and open speculation, contributors were given anonymity.
Continue reading Beyond Ricci: Experts Predict Hearings' Focus
While Senate Judiciary Committee leaders sort out when Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings will be held, what is there for the rest of us to do? Speculate, of course.
NationalJournal.com sought out several Supreme Court observers from a variety of fields for their take on when the full Senate will vote on Sotomayor and how many senators will vote to confirm her. The consensus? That Sotomayor will be confirmed before the recess and receive a comfortable number of votes. There won't be any teetering along the crucial line of 60 votes, either, the experts predict.
Below are predictions from: Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog and Supreme Court litigator at Akin Gump; Slate senior editor Dahlia Lithwick; University of Utah law professor and Volokh Conspiracy blogger Paul Cassell; University of North Carolina law professor Bill Marshall; Santa Clara University law professor Bradley Joondeph; University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias; Doug Kendall, founder and president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo; and National Journal's own Stuart Taylor Jr. In order to encourage frank and open speculation, contributors were given anonymity.
When will President Obama pick his Supreme Court nominee?
Administration officials recently said that Obama will make his choice before he leaves for Egypt, Germany and France the first week of June. But some in the media have speculated that it could be before Memorial Day, weighing the comments of lawmakers who have talked with Obama and others in the vetting process. Aboard Air Force One on Thursday, press secretary Robert Gibbs dodged reporters' inquiries, saying the goal is to have a nominee go through the process before the August recess so they can "start work with the Supreme Court on the first Monday in October."
NationalJournal.com sought out several Supreme Court observers from a variety of fields for their take on when Obama will announce his pick. What's the consensus? That the president will make his choice when he's good and ready. Some say it could be this week, while others say next week based on the White House's rough timeline.
Below are predictions from: NBC Supreme Court reporter Pete Williams; Slate senior editor Dahlia Lithwick; lawyer Howard Bashman of the blog How Appealing; University of Santa Clara School of Law professor Bradley Joondeph; George Washington University Law School professor and Volokh Conspiracy blogger Orin Kerr; Washington lawyer Adam White; University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl Tobias, and Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo. In order to ensure honest and frank speculation, contributors were allowed to submit their thoughts without using their names.
Contributors' predictions after the jump.
