Who Obama might nominate to replace Scalia on Supreme Court
ASSOCIATED PRESS
President Barack Obama speaks to reporters about the death of Supreme Court Justice Justice Antonin Scalia at Omni Rancho Las Palmas in Rancho Mirage, CA. Saturday.
WASHINGTON >> Republicans are near-unanimous in demanding that President Barack Obama leave it to his successor to nominate a candidate to fill the Supreme Court seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But the president insists he plans to come forward with a nominee — and that there’s plenty of time for the Senate to weigh in.
That sets up what could be an epic election-year clash between Obama and Republicans who say they’ll refuse to vote for his nominee, who could reshape the court for decades to come.
So who will Obama pick?
The White House had prepared for the possibility of liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer retiring — but less so for a sudden vacancy of one of the court’s staunch conservatives like Scalia, said a former administration lawyer with knowledge of current White House planning. Now the White House is scrambling to put together a “short list” of candidates to be fully vetted, said the former official, who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations.
The biggest question facing Obama: whether he and his team feel there’s any realistic chance they can persuade Republicans to allow a vote.
If the answer is yes, Obama would have to try to find a perfect candidate with enough appeal to Republicans to change their minds. A sitting senator or someone recently confirmed might do the trick.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with top news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
If the answer is no, Obama could try to use his selection to political advantage in this year’s elections by nominating someone who would spark backlash if Republicans oppose him or her. Picking a minority or someone from a battleground state in the election could rile up the Democratic base.
The White House said Sunday that Obama will nominate someone “in due time” once the Senate returns next week from recess. Obama took roughly a month to nominate Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, but this time the clock is ticking like never before.
Obama hasn’t said who he’s considering, but some Cabinet members, politicians and current judges are being prominently floated as possible picks:
THE CABINET MEMBERS
—Attorney General Loretta Lynch
Though Lynch’s nomination was fraught with politics, she’s been recently confirmed and has been received relatively well by both parties since taking over the Justice Department less than a year ago. Before Obama promoted her, Lynch was a U.S. attorney for a key district based in Brooklyn. An African-American woman has never served on the Supreme Court. But her role in the Obama administration could prove divisive.
—Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson
Johnson has serious credentials in many critical areas of the law, having served as the Pentagon’s general counsel and as a federal prosecutor. He has the benefit of having been Senate-confirmed multiple times — most recently in 2013 by an overwhelming majority. But Republicans loathe Obama’s executive actions on immigration that Johnson’s department put forward and are currently before the Supreme Court.
THE POLITICIANS
—California Attorney General Kamala Harris
Elected statewide in California in 2010, Harris is a longtime prosecutor and rising Democratic star who has drawn occasional comparisons with Obama. She’s currently running to replace California Sen. Barbara Boxer. Obama has made no secret of his affection for Harris; He once had to apologize after making an offhand joke that Harris was the country’s best-looking attorney general.
—Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Picking a current colleague of the senators who will be voting on Obama’s nominee could be one strategy to increase prospects for a vote. Klobuchar, in her second Senate term, is a former prosecutor and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
—Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch
The Republican senator would be nominated only if Obama decided it would be better to pick a candidate Democrats didn’t love than risk a Republican successor making the choice for him. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has suggested Obama go with a “consensus pick” like Hatch. He’s also a key holdout in getting Senate approval for Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
THE JUDGES
—Sri Srinivasan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
With a compelling personal story, Srinivasan has long been eyed for the high court. Born in India, Srinivasan clerked for former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — a Republican. He has the added appeal of having been confirmed unanimously less than three years ago.
—Merrick Garland, chief judge, U.S. Court for Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit
Garland is a Harvard Law School graduate whose name has long been in the mix. He’s considered a moderate judge and has experience on the D.C. circuit, which handles many cases involving administration actions.
—Paul Watford, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Watford once served as a law clerk to Ginsburg, and worked as a federal prosecutor before Obama appointed him to the San Francisco-based court. An African-American, Watford was confirmed 61-34 in 2012.
—Jacqueline Nguyen, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nguyen would be the first Asian-American on the Supreme Court. She emigrated as a child from Vietnam and worked as an assistant U.S. attorney and a judge in California before Obama nominated her to federal courts.
—Patricia Millett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Obama nominated Millett in 2013 after John Roberts joined the Supreme Court as chief justice. Her nomination lingered for months amid a fight about the filibuster. Millett had experience in the U.S. Solicitor General’s office, arguing dozens of cases before the Supreme Court.
—Robert Wilkins, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
A chemical engineer by training, Wilkins was a public defender before being appointed by Obama to federal positions. Wilkins, an African-American, was raised by a single mother and is known for his involvement in civil rights issues.
—Jane Kelly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Kelly, a former public defender, was unanimously confirmed to the St. Louis-based court. She’s earned praise from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Grassley has joined Republicans in urging delay until after the election.
———
Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.
———
Reach Josh Lederman on Twitter at http://twitter.com/joshledermanAP. His work can be found at http://bigstory.ap.org/author/josh-lederman
54 responses to “Who Obama might nominate to replace Scalia on Supreme Court”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
He can nominate whomever he wants. The GOPe doesn’t need to confirm anyone if they don’t want to.
Very true and Mr. Obama’s hypocrisy on the matter gives them standing to do so.
From ABC News: “In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.
On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on “This Week” that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know.”
What goes around, comes around.
In other words, Obama was acting in his constitutional capacity as a Senator, that is acting on a nomination. What the GOP is saying is they will not even give a nominee a vote, in other words to fail to act in a manner prescribed by the constitution. The GOP’s statements that they will simply not consider a presidential nominee demonstrates their intent to disregard their role in the constitution. Now what happens if the President nominates someone who the Senate had previously confirmed unanimously or by a wide margin for a seat on a appellant court? Would that not show that the GOP is simply playing politics and disregarding the constitution? Nope the GOP has already dug themselves a hole here. The President will submit a nominee who should be confirmed, and if they don’t there will be a political price they will pay.
Yes lets leave it up to the next president, President Sanders with the advice and consent of a democratic senate. Republicans might just regret their obstructive tactics. Even if Hillary should win, guess who might be chosen? (Obama)
Sure, Sanders has a chance for winning the presidency—- OF VENEZUELA.
The DNC is in the tank for Hillary so there is no way Bernie is going to be the nominee.
You all might be surprised, Hillary has a big trust issue to overcome if she is to win the nomination.It could very well be Sanders vs Trump in the election. Who would of thought a year ago that was even a possibility.
My own wildest speculation is founded on the fact that the President is allowed by the Constitution to fill any vacancy (including Supreme Court) without Senate confirmation during any period when the Senate is in recess. It’s called a “recess appointment.” This is how John Bolton became ambassador to the United Nations when nominated by President Bush and when a Democrat-controlled Senate was dragging its feet and not holding a hearing on him — I recall Bolton served for about 2 years until the Bush Presidency ended.
I think Obama would like his next job to be Secretary General of the U.N. (he’s already been behaving like that anyway); but that job is not currently available. Obama might play along with Republican delays in the Senate until after the election. He could then look forward to the period between the end of the 114th Congress and the beginning of the new 115th Congress in January, during which time the Senate is in recess. He could then exercise his Constitutional power to fill the Supreme court vacancy with a recess appointment — and since he remains President until noon on January 20, he could appoint himself to the Supreme Court. A further refinement of this idea would be to move the timetable to a period just before the Democrat national convention, when Hillary Clinton is no longer a viable candidate because she has been indicted, and Bernie Sanders is clearly unelectable. At that time (Senate in recess for the party conventions) Obama does a recess appointment of himself to the Supreme Court, resigning the Presidency in favor of VP Joe Biden, and giving Biden a leg up for the November election when the Democrat convention nominates Biden by acclamation.
Maybe I’ve been reading too much fiction (all that “Hawaiian nation” nonsense).
Exactly what statute violation are you suggesting that Mrs. Clinton will be indicted for? Or do you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about?
Or do you? The mishandling of classified information, intentional or otherwise, is broadly covered by law.
1. Federal Records Act: The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities. (44 U.S. Code § 3101)
2. 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
SHALL BE FINED UNDER THIS TITLE OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS, OR BOTH.
Just a couple of possibilities to which we would add the Freedom Of Information Act.
You seem to forget that case law for all of those statutes require proving a knowing and willful act. Since that didn’t happen, you might have a problem with your legal theory. They would need then to also charge Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, as well as others.
It’s unfortunate that no one actually understands the charging requirements before they comment.
Clinton did knowingly and purposely have a private server installed in her home and use it for government business, including emails designated top secret. She’s already admitted it.
You don’t understand the law. Obviously.
Such a lonely old foolish man.
Hey, when is that Obama impeachment coming downm
Kekelaward, completely agree with your post.
As does the Constitution. The President nominates, the Senate confirms. Politically, for Senators in tough re-election fights, it may be better to confirm earlier than later, but, even then, the Senate confirms when it wants to.
The headline should read, “Whom (not Who) Obama might nominate to replace Scalia on Supreme Court.” Who is the subject pronoun, and since Obama is “doing” the action, the nominee is the object of his action and therefore, takes the object pronoun (whom). It’s no wonder students’ use of the language is deteriorating.
Thank You!
Nobody cares. People who manufacture and blindly follow unnecessary rules are truly the lowest forms of life on the planet.
You mean rules like grammar?
Rules on classified information and penalties for improper handling. Gramma Hillary. FBI investigation underway.
I didn’t like Antonin Scalia much but I now realize, since his passing, that we need people like him to make us constantly re-examine what we think we believe. I will actually miss him.
Cellodad: I totally agree with your comment. He’ll be a difficult person to replace, even if it’s another conservative. Let’s just hope it won’t be another John Roberts, a wolf in sheep clothing.
What errors of law, specifically, are you accusing John Roberts of? Or do you just have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about? I vote for the latter.
Hello…he re-wrote the Odumbo appeal so that obamacare would pass. That is not only activist(against all that the Supreme Court “supposedly” stands for) but certainly NOT interpreting or adjudicating a constitutional matter!
This sad comment proves that you don’t understand the law or Constitution. Understood.
Did you read Roberts’ opinion?
Of course.
Scalia disagreed with Roberts’ electing to do Congress’ job for them as well. Can we assume you consider Scalia ignorant of Constitutional law as well?
Yes, Judges willing to discriminate against an entire group of people based on their own religious beliefs are hard to come by nowadays.
The President can nominate anyone he likes,this is his job! That’s all he can do….. “Nominate”. And if you believe Obama will select someone”Down the Middle”?? Ha!ha!ha! Don’t believe it!
It’s also up to the Republican controlled Senate,to confirm or not to confirm his nomination….This is their Job too!
I can see this train coming down the road: If the The Senate decides to DELAY, DELAY, DELAY. ( Which they Will) The Democrats will whine & blame the Republicans for” Shutting Down the Government”and everything else!Sounds silly right? Watch!
For now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republicans best be prepared! Dig in ,stand your ground and don’t Back down .Put on your Game face! Don’t fall for this game Again!Do your JOB!
I agree with all the GOP Presidential Candidates….especially w/Donald Trump. “Delay, Delay and Delay”
Let the Next President pick Antonin Scalia’s replacement!IMUA
So you want to change the Constitution to shorten the term of a President to three years? What are you talking about?
What change do you mean? The President’s job is to nominate and the Senate’s is to review and confirm/reject nominees. I must’ve missed the part about a 3-year term.
People are writing, incorrectly, that Mr. Obama should not nominate anyone in his fourth year in office. That is ridiculous.
Exactly! What are you talking about!
Wait,she said that he was the actual responsible person to do that job. So what is it since the Senate wants to delay the process. Who would be blamed? Someone take a poll
Not only is there no constitutional obligation for the Senate to act on Obama’s schedule or within his remaining term, there is no constitutional obligation for them to approve his Supreme Court nominee. A simple “NO” is just fine on all grounds.
Further, hypocrite, Obama himself voted to filibuster the nomination of Alito. So, what goes around, comes around. Enjoy!
Senators can have it both ways. Obama is not being a hypocrite for the same reason McConnell isn’t. If a Senator doesn’t like an appointment, he/she can stall it. At some point, majority usually rules. If the roles were reversed, the same arguments would be used. The controversy is about politics; and all future controversies are about politics. The system, in this instance, is actually working. Checks and Balances. In the end the Senate should act. The President, if he wants a confirmation has to submit a candidate that the Senate will approve. Nixon had two nominees rejected. That’s how it goes. This debate should be vigorous. And people will change sides for many reasons.
Yes I agree that it is the job of the senate to either confirm or not confirm the president’s nomination. So vote republicans and go on record why you think a candidate is not fit to be SC judge. But no, republicans are basically cowards. They won’t put up Obama’s appointment for a vote. They will just delay delay and delay because that is all that the party of No can do. Just another reason why one should never vote republican.
Predictable. Republicans bad. Democrats pure as driven snow. As a refresher, here’s what your democrat vote has produced over the last 7 years:
Inflaming an ever increasing racial divide.
Impoverishing the largest progressive run state, California, with the highest percentage of those living under the poverty line.
Ignoring our soon to be insolvent entitlement programs (Social Security Disability next year).
Presiding over the slowest economic recovery, the lowest labor participation rate in 4 decades.
Squandering US influence in the world at the expense of vital national interests, particularly the Middle East.
Negotiating a nuclear agreement that will set of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and actually shelter the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
An immigration policy that amounts to the dissolution of our borders in order to import democrat party voters.
Use of the IRS like a sort of political gestapo to shut up conservative groups.
Supporting the sale of baby body parts.
These appear to be the guiding principles of the Democrat party, either by design or by ignorance, aimed at a slow destruction of the country.
You continue to lie over and over again about Fox News talking points like the IRS thing. First of all, it isn’t true. Second, it might help if you learned about who the Gestapo were and what they did. Someone who knows something about the Nazis needs to try yet again to lift you out of your pit of ignorance. Other points are simply too incorrect and debunked to comment on. Facts be damned.
Fox News the number one rated cable news channel. Good job Winston. Hit em where it hurts. They can’t handle the truth. Meanwhile don’t disturb Obama since he had a bad day on the golf course. Middle East is heating up. What you going to do???
I can’t help but think that a far more reasonable and palatable approach by the republicans would be to wait until a nominee is offered before threatening rejection. Obama would then be encouraged to select an individual with a realistic chance of approval, who could then be thoroughly vetted and possibly confirmed. Bottom line, the decision would still be up to the GOP, and the pressure to move forward would remain with Obama.
Agreed. However, politics over reason. The GOP is on the verge of being euthanized (by Donald Trump and his supporters). Anything but a “hell no” from the Senate right now would just increase his momentum in SC and super Tuesday states.
This lame duck far left liberal President OBama thinks his most likely a liberal nominee will get pass the Republican control senate. It’s dead on arrival, period.
In January 2017 our new United States President, be it Trump, Cruz or Rubio, you can bet their nominee will be a pure conservative similar to Justice Scalia.
lol, well it will be interesting to see if republicans have the guts to actually vote on it. The lazy party of No, is more interested in collecting their welfare check than actually doing some work.
Obama is hardly far left. But I understand. You are a far rightie who is upset that a black man became president.
Being a righty, very similiar to Justice Scalia, has nothing to do with anyone’s color of his/her skin. Your true color is showing by your left wing race card when this worst U.S. President in history is criticize for his liberal actions. Our Muslim President Barack Hussien Obama compentency has nothing to do with the color of his skin.
Millions of Americans can’t wait until he departs from the White house and probably go home to Kenya or reside in his real home in Chicago. I would tell the President when he leaves don’t let the door hit you from behind. Good ridence.
Now if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, all bets are off. But America is waiting for the FBI to indict this lady. She needs some prison time. Boots, nothing to do with the color of her White skin..
The Kenya comment exposes your ignorance and racism. Good luck marinating in both.
There’s something about being appointed to the Supreme Court that really changes people. William O Douglas was a great example. President Eisenhower thought he was getting a rubber stamp but then Douglas wrote the beautiful decision in Brown V. … Topeka. When Eisenhower served his two terms, he was asked if he had any regrets. He responded Only one, appointing that SOB Douglas. The power and beauty of the Supreme Court is in its ability to change our social reality.
I am so sorry. I made a terrible mistake. I meant to write Earl Warren rather that Justice Douglas. I will be more careful next time.
Missing from the list is Judy Sheindlin.
I must be having a bad dream to read that our Muslim President Obama will select his Attorney General for Justice Scalia’s spot. She is pure liberal and anti-law enforcement, meaning the Police force. Nothing to do with the color of her skin, but she won’t get pass the U.S. Senate door – Her nominee or any of Obama’s nominee is dead on arrival. She is almost as worst a U.S. Attorney General as her boss, President Barack Hussien Obama.
The gull for this Muslim President to replace Conservative Justice Scalia with a liberal. My goodness!!.
Senator Marco Rubio confirm on Fox News that the U.S. Senate will not consider any of Obama’s nominees to replace Justice Scalia.
The republicans may risk losing control of the senate if they fail to at least hold a vote on a well qualified nomination. People are tired of 7 years of Washington gridlock, that’s why the outsiders are leading in the polls.