Post User Polls

Who will be the next Supreme Court nominee?

Rank who you think will be President Obama's next Supreme Court nominee by moving the options up or down by clicking the arrows.

Don't see your candidate on there? Talk about it in the comment thread below.

By Jodi Westrick  |  April 12, 2010; 2:21 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: New book sheds light on Oprah's image | Next: Could you be Vegan before 6 p.m.?


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Though all five constituting someone's list here seem to be well qualified, the list isn't very extensive in terms of experience. A worthwhile addition for consideration would be Elizabeth Warren.

Posted by: FirstMouse1 | April 12, 2010 3:31 PM

I'd like to see Ron Paul as a candidate.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | April 12, 2010 4:16 PM

Are we serious about nominating this list?

There is not one talent amongst them.

I wonder if it is all a part of the dumbing down of America.

Posted by: DeLyonGetty | April 12, 2010 7:15 PM

I can't see dear Janet, unless the point is to tear the United States apart.

Posted by: rusty3 | April 12, 2010 8:27 PM

The missing candate for SCOTUS is HILLARY CLINTO! She can add balance to a Court whose Conservative say one thing, but do something else.
For example the first vote of Roberts & Alito was to declare the Oregon law on "Death with Dignity" to be unconstitutional, There is nothing in the Constitution for this decision. It is an Ideological decision that Conservatives do not want.
Conservatives say the Courts should not make laws, that is the job of Congress.
Also the more recent deciswion to allow unlimited spending for Special Interest groups upsets our Governing process. The recent Health Reform show the coflict of Votes with money, with votes losing!

Posted by: WJJAWEST | April 12, 2010 8:34 PM

Paula Kamena California

Posted by: dottydo | April 12, 2010 9:26 PM

Paula Kamena California

Mrs. Kamena even has a day named for her 9 years ago, because of her due diligence to her work in the law profession.

Posted by: dottydo | April 12, 2010 9:37 PM

None of these individuals have a voting block that would protect them from GOP attacks. It was not until the GOP started to fall in the polls with Hispanic voters that they realized it was hurting them to keep up the silly attacks. My next two nominees would be an Asian-American and Joe Biden. Attacking the first Asian-American nominee would be political suicide in some areas. Joe has friends in the Senate which would not reject one of it's long time members and an experienced member of the Judiciary Committee. Then Obama could appoint Hillary to the VP spot and energize parts of the party that haven't accepted a black in the White House. I'd want to appoint Joe before the 2012 election.

Posted by: atp2007 | April 12, 2010 9:59 PM

Any prospective nominee who shares Stevens', Souter's, Breyer's, Ginsberg's, and Kennedy's stance on the Kelo versus New London case is, in my humble opinion, unworthy of a spot on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: SCOTSGUARDS | April 12, 2010 11:47 PM

Whether you like Kelo or not, the ruling, as a matter of law, was an unremarkable development considering how takings law has evolved. If you have a gripe w/ Kelo, you have to get pissed a justices who go much farther back than Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy.

As for anyone who thinks these individuals are unqualified, that's absurd. Judge Wood regularly spars with and has earned the respect of the country's brightest conservative legal minds. SG Kagan and Judge Garland have similarly earned the respect of legal scholars everywhere. Garland and Wood, with respect to judicial experience, are more qualified than Alito or Roberts were when they were nominated.

Posted by: pensfan3 | April 13, 2010 1:05 AM

Clearly, the administration wants to give every serious consideration to appointing a gay or lesbian to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: blasmaic | April 13, 2010 5:35 AM

Hillary Clinton

Posted by: honeybee1 | April 13, 2010 9:01 AM

Is Elena Kagan related to the
zionist Kagan columnists at WaPo, who are Israel firsters to a degree unbearable.

What we don't need is another Jewish
associate....there are already two of nine, in a country with 2% Jews.

Hillary, a token accomplish nothing SecState wold be good at the Court. Leah Ward Sears next. Wood third.
Kagan? NEVER.

Posted by: whistling | April 13, 2010 10:57 AM

As the Democratic Party primary was coming to an end, the Obama campaign mentioned that, if Obama won the nomination, he would appoint Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court. I didn't believe it for one nanosecond. It was a tactic that the Obama campaign used to mollify Hillary supporters. Now, the truth is out. Yesterday, the White House went out of its way to point out that Hillary is NOT under consideration. Another Obama campaign promise it isn't going to keep. And Joe Biden??? Forget it, man. He's a blow hard of the first rank.

Posted by: Paaa | April 13, 2010 11:23 AM

I forgot to mention that Obama will likely pick Duval Patrick. He and Obama are as thick as thieves and Patrick is running way behind in his re-election bid this year. Did I mention that Patrick is also Black?

Posted by: Paaa | April 13, 2010 11:28 AM

While all of these are very well qualified, I think President Obama should seriously consider former Stanford Law School Dean Kathlee Sullivan. She is an outstanding contitutional scholar who, literally, "wrote the book" on constitutional law. She would be a shining light in a court that has seen too much medicrity through the appointment of some of GOP's political hacks to the court.

Posted by: topperale | April 13, 2010 11:50 AM

I should be the person nominated to the Supreme Court.

I first swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States more than 30 years ago, and reaffirmed that oath many times since then.

I'm a firm beleiver in limited government and maximum individual rights; which reflects the beleifs of the founding fathers as expressed in the Federalist Papers, the Declaration, and the Constitution itself.

I'm already receiving compensation from the U.S. government for my previous service and as a retainer for future service if necessary.

I hold a B.S. in Computer Information Systems Management, and an M.S. in Management, Healthcare Administration.

Posted by: mhoust | April 13, 2010 12:06 PM

You can bet that whomever it is they won't be White or Male

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | April 13, 2010 12:38 PM

My nomination is ELIZABETH WARREN.

Smart, Lots of Common Sense; A pleasant, engaging manner; Outstanding legal and academic credentials; Great Communicator; (from outside the beltway, until her current assignment with national finance and banking); No prior judicial baggage.

She's direct, but not divisive--A great candidate to bring the Supreme Court back on track with collegiallty and solid thought. She's an American Treasure, A People's Justice.

Posted by: sturdivantl1 | April 13, 2010 1:34 PM

The President should nominate former VP Al Gore. That move will cause a heart attack for Beck and Limbaugh, the Republican Party will implode. The tea baggers will act crazy as usual.

Then in a few days Gore will steoaside and
Kagan will become the next associate justice of the supreme court.

Posted by: COWENS99 | April 13, 2010 1:48 PM

I agree with some others. Elizabeth Warren should be at the top of the list! She doesn't have an agenda, but is able to cut through to the core of an issue.

Posted by: jpstephens47 | April 13, 2010 3:31 PM

I will suggest Hillary Clinton should be nominated to balance out two new irration, conservative judges.

Posted by: sgoel | April 13, 2010 4:57 PM

Does anyone know Kagan? She is another Robert and Alito and admits what they denied. The Harvard Supreme Court.
Kagan has said 'I love the Federalist Society.' This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society. Many members of the Federalist Society say that Brown v. Board of Education [which struck down 'separate but equal'] was decided wrongly.

Five currently on the U.S. Supreme Court were or are members of the Federalist Society: Harvard Law graduate Roberts; Harvard Law graduate Scalia; Harvard Law graduate Kennedy; Yale Law graduate Thomas; and Yale Law graduate Alito. A narrow elite is imposing itself through the legal system, and ordinary Americans need to start asserting themselves.
Think again voters. Is that what you want?

Posted by: caridgejr | April 13, 2010 5:34 PM

It seems pretty clear to me the only reason Andy Stern is leaving the powerful labor union SEIU - at the height of his personal power and influence, he is afterall the most frequent visitor to the White House - is that he has another job lined up.

Obama said he wants someone who slip his blindfold will put his thumb on the scales of justice for "the little guy". Democratic Senators are lining up to give sound bites about selecting someone outside the judical club - some one from the real world.

Obama will nominate Andy Stern for Associate Justice, Senate will Confirm (with good old Joe breaking any ties).

Posted by: majcsmith | April 13, 2010 9:05 PM


Posted by: dagner49 | April 14, 2010 12:03 AM

Look at their ages. When President Obama nominates someone for the Supreme Court, he wants someone who will be around for a while. Someone mentioned Joe Biden, but he is too old. Ideally, the nominee should not be over 50. An Asian-American would be a good choice if there is one who is well qualified (amd who is not a Tea Party conservative). You need someone who is a legal scholar and understands the constitution and the separating of powers. You do not need someone with a personal agenda.

Posted by: FredinVicksburg | April 14, 2010 3:52 AM

Janet nor Leah belong, Merrick is a man and like the qualified Elena of wrong faith. That leaves the qualified, more left, Protestant Diane for the spot.

Posted by: jameschirico | April 14, 2010 7:35 AM

I think Joe Biden is a great choice, if only for the entertainment value of watching him and Scalia go at each other.

Posted by: lydgate | April 15, 2010 12:33 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company