PPI - Radically Pragmatic
  • Donate
Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • Locations
    • Careers
  • People
  • Projects
  • Our Work
  • Events
  • Donate

Our Work

On Supreme Court, Bet on a Safe Pick — and a Big Fight Anyway

  • April 12, 2010
  • Elbert Ventura

The word coming out of the administration and Democrats in Congress is that President Obama would like to avoid a big fight over his next Supreme Court nominee. And indeed, the emerging conventional-wisdom shortlist reflects the desire for a nominee who can win smooth confirmation from the Senate.

The names that keep popping up are Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal Appeals Court Judges Diane Wood (of Chicago) and Merrick Garland (of District of Columbia). One less-mentioned name who is still a possibility is Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

As Stuart Taylor Jr., hardly a liberal ideologue, wrote recently, “It would be hard for Senate Republicans to justify or sustain a filibuster against any of these four, based on what’s known about them. Indeed, Kagan, Garland, Napolitano, and arguably Wood have less problematic paper trails than Sotomayor, whom the Senate confirmed last summer on a 68-31 vote, with lots of complaining but no filibuster.” Indeed, if anything, the picks might be too safe for some on the left. The emergence of Kagan as a frontrunner has already led to some howls of outrage from some progressives who see her as much too accommodating to conservative and centrist views and want a more combative liberal to replace John Paul Stevens.

Bet on Obama to (as usual) block out the noise from the fray in making his selection and pick someone safe. But bet on this as well: whomever he taps will inspire a loud clamor from conservatives, both in the base and on the Hill.

Kagan may very well be the most qualified of the possible nominees (I haven’t studied all their records). But forget about her moderation cooling the temperature over the Supreme Court debate. The right has perpetuated a narrative that simply doesn’t allow for the idea of a moderate progressive. Anyone to the left of Scott Brown (and that might be too generous) is suspect, an enabler of the “most radical administration in American history.” Besides, a Supreme Court fight is the kind of thing fundraisers and the rank-and-file live for. By the time the Beck-Palin-Rush crew is done with Kagan or any Obama nominee, they will be a lightning rod anyway. And, just as with health care, the likelihood is that the left will rally around the nominee once they see the right flip out over it.

This isn’t to say that Kagan wouldn’t win confirmation. All of the four mentioned above are confirmable. But a rancorous debate is probably unavoidable. It’s simply where we are right now. Nate Silver writes, “One other dynamic to watch out for: whether the partisan split on Obama has become so entrenched that whomever he nominates will start out with 35 percent disapproval.” I’ll take the over.

Related Work

Press Release  |  February 25, 2022

PPI Statement on the Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court 

Op-Ed  |  October 14, 2021

Goldberg for New York Law Journal: Congress Should Enact Antitrust Reforms That Spur Competition, Not Excessive Lawsuits

  • Phil Goldberg
Op-Ed  |  February 8, 2021

Biden’s commission on the judiciary must put justice over politics

  • Phil Goldberg
Publication  |  September 28, 2020

The GOP’s Pivot Away From Fiscal Relief Hurts Millions of Americans

  • Ben Ritz Brendan McDermott
Op-Ed  |  July 30, 2019

Goldberg for the Washington Examiner: “Forcing More Litigation Isn’t the Answer to Litigation Abuse”

  • Phil Goldberg
Press Release  |  February 15, 2019

Press Release: Will the Senate Defend Our Constitution?

  • Will Marshall
  • Never miss an update:

  • Subscribe to our newsletter
PPI Logo
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Donate
  • Careers
  • © 2025 Progressive Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved.
  • |
  • Privacy Policy
  • |
  • Privacy Settings