Obama's Shortlist For Supreme Court: Napolitano Added

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is now being added to President Obama's shortlist as David Souter's replacement on the Supreme Court, according to MSNBC.

Before her Obama appointment, Napolitano served as governor of Arizona, as well as Arizona attorney general. As a lawyer at the Phoenix-based firm Lewis and Roca LLP, Napolitano represented Anita Hill in her sexual harassment suit against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

Napolitano's name was not originally mentioned as a Supreme Court pick, although her name has now been added to a list that includes Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit, Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit, Solicitor GeneralElena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, according to MSNBC.

ABC News has more on the shortlist here.

Comments

[aLittle2theLeft]

I really want a women to be chosen, but sorry "Not A White Women", that is not true diversity, another white women is just another white person, what we need is diversity that represent not only race and ethnicity but experiences of modern America,

How does putting a white women on the bench diversity? It is not!

Can she relate to the struggles and perspectives of people of color in this country, "NO" she cant!

Sorry, but what we need is a person of color on the bench and if it's a women even better!

To nominate another white person even if it's a women, along with the other 8 white judges already on the bench and call it "diversity" is INSANE.

[davyd56]

Janet was a great Governor as a Dem in a red state when I lived there...she has my vote. It could also satisfy another special interest group.

[everychildsnana]

She would be a nominee with lots of baggage most of the country doesn't know but will if she's nominated. Her revisionist 'New Word Order Dictionary' she & her cult in "Homeland" Security have been writing is truly frightening to see thus far,& to imagine when they get more of done & we get more of it out in public, even if Obama , Holder, both endorsed it.
'Homeland' is hardly the word or place for her . 'Homeland' to us is US of A ; to her now, & more for the immediate future, it's 'US of Norte Americano ' ; it's also growing -within 4 years or so- as her "New World Order" envisioned by unlikely bedfellows: she & Bush the Elder: she to eradicate our borders with any countries,especially the entire third world; & he, Bush,to eradicate trade restrictions to quick billions for his posse.
Our grandchildren face enough dreadful trouble; We can hardly beat the odds now to save our children from the totally corrupt political-corporate structure that's crushing us. With her as New World Order installed on the US Supreme Court for 40 years,we'll be guaranteeing them a dark world ,a fascistic world without freedom to speak the words in the traditional English meanings of their parents & grandparents & all that it means ; and ,for sure, with little hope for a life of plenty, security, individuality,freedom to reject whatever. It is a scary world right now; & we happily voted for Obama, cried

[Hydra8]

Whomever the POTUS picks it should be a woman who has experience in women's issues and the fact that women are falling behind in the world of poverty and joblessness. In fact I believe his job stimulus package does not address traditional womens jobs while it promotes jobs in construction, and building schools and bridges. What is in the package for improving the status of women and pay equity?

[AhnAmuru]

Pay equity is an assumed given the Lilly Ledbetter Act.

[OnReflection]

The pool of people to choose from for the SCOTUS position is very high at least a hundred candidates nation wide, that have similar excellent qualifications, from what I understand,

Hence the statement that Obama made regarding "empathy", He is looking for additional points of distinctions for the position, from which he has narrowed down to about five candidates.

Now to pick some one within his won cabinet, would smack of Cronyism. Essentially stepping over the other most qualified five candidates never mind the other hundred.

Then the over arching distiction between the candidates will not be qualifications, experience and all the hard work to get to your position,

but "Who You Know"!

[beth31215]

As long as it is not Governor Jennifer Granholm.
She would be a terrible choice for Supreme Court.
A Michigan couple wanted to donate millions to the Detroit City schools and Granholm could not make it work. ( http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=5811 )
In 2000 she was a strong advocate for gun control. She switched on the issue when she ran for Michigan Governor. By the time she was up for reelection, she had so completely flipped on the issue that MICRO (pro gun group) couldn't oppose her because she had signed ALL their legislation. ( http://www.mcrgopac.org/?action=40&what=100053 )
And my guess is that this Catholic governor will reposition herself on the Choice issue as soon as she no longer needs Emily List's monetary support.
She is not the type of Democrat you want on the court for perpetuity.
She is ineffective and she is a risk.

[swo68]

I agree. She's just been bad for MI in general.

[Horus45]

She's got my support, she is a brilliant person.

[LooktotheLeft]

From all that I've seen and heard, she really is (brilliant person). Most people don't know that, and her, because she comes from such a small, non-mainstream state. But just to be elected as a Dem in such a conservative state, AZ, is a feat in itself. How she handled the border issues in AZ as well as could ever be expected under such incendiary circumstances.

[truegreen]

not that i have anything against them, but Napoliatano and Granholm should be dropped from that short list.

[blueskybigstar]

why

[LooktotheLeft]

no reason

[OnReflection]

Obama has a short list well defined, the republicans make a big fuss and send a letter of who they don't want to be selected for SCOTUS, the next thing we know the list is suddenly being expanded.

What a coincidence!!

[PINO]

Look, Napolitano as HSS lacks experience. He's an empty suit just like obama. Now the Anointed One is short listing this guy? Again, lacks experience for the position as SCOTU. But what the hell. Most of obama's appointments to his cabinet were either tax cheats or previous Clinton appointments.

Love the slogan, change we can believe in.

[Bilboo]

Janet Napolitano is a woman.

[PINO]

Really??? Could have fooled me.

[LooktotheLeft]

Homeland Security is window dressing to satisfy r*ight w*ingers who, to this day, make every effort to justify its existence in the name of 9*-11. It doesn't secure the "homeland", never has, and never will. All it has done, and continues to do, is get in the f**king way of agencies that, at the very least, functioned as best they could but under Homeland are on life support in terms of functionality. The quicker they downgrade this mammoth "boat anchor" to less than Department status, the better. Subsequently, the quicker the Obama administration begins to utilize the vast, under-used talents of people like Janet Napolitano, the better. SC sounds like a good place to start

[Horus45]

That was under Republican leadership.
You don't believe a Democrat will run things better?

Obama has NOT appointed crony morons to ANY position, everyone he has appointed is MORE than qualified for the job they were given!
We'll see when Hurricane Season rolls around if FEMA is much better run under Napolitano.

[LooktotheLeft]

Clearly a Dem would run things better...and already is. It's just my assessment (and only an opinion) that Homeland Security should never have stood up to begin with. But now that we have it, what to do with it is the question. FEMA was much better run as its own entity (under Clinton). It's only after it fell under the purvue of HHS that it began to come apart (under such stellar leadership as that of Brownie). And most everything else that falls under HHS is now worse off than before HHS was stood up. You can ask just about anyone who works for the orgs such as the FBI.

It's just my distinct impression that Obama was so anxious to get Napolitano (one of his biggest loyalists) under his wing, that he would've hired her for just about anything. I can imagine his first conversation going something like this: "Look, I just need you to steward this thing until I can get rid of it. If you do half as good a job as you did in AZ, I've got nothing to worry about until we can move you on to something bigger and better...like the SC, for example."

[LooktotheLeft]

Homeland Security is window dressing to satisfy right wingers who, to this day, make every effort to justify its existence in the name of 9-11. It doesn't secure the "homeland", never has, and never will. All it has done, and continues to do, is get in the f**king way of agencies that, at the very least, functioned as best they could but under Homeland are on life support in terms of functionality. The quicker they downgrade this mammoth "boat anchor" to less than Department status, the better. Subsequently, the quicker the Obama administration begins to utilize the vast, under-used talents of people like Janet Napolitano, the better. SC sounds like a good place to start

[LooktotheLeft]

If it was Obama's intent to get rid of Napolitano, after only 100 days as head of Homeland, he'd just move her to a figurehead job until she eases out of the scene altogether. I wouldn't exactly regard moving her to the SC a demotion or easing her out. Has anyone considered that this was, quite possibly, planned from the beginning? Homeland is not exactly President Obama's top priority as far as agencies go. And, frankly, the sooner we disband it altogether, the better. It's nothing but eyewash to begin with. It was never needed as an agency and has become nothing more than a "Politburoish" bureaucracy sucking the life out of D.C....

[LooktotheLeft]

On the surface, this seems like a pretty viable choice. I've always been a Napolitano fan. I was starting to feel really good about the Georgia Chief Justice until I read about her being such chums w/ Clarence Thomas. There's too much chance of her pulling a David Souter on us...in the opposite direction.

[jordan3189]

You sure talk a lot.

[LooktotheLeft]

Sorry, I keep it more succient:

F*ck you.

[blueskybigstar]

No. She would be more likely to change Thomas. She has an impeccable record that does not change. He practically bows to her and said that she had a beautiful mind. They are from the same town. That is the only connection.

[LooktotheLeft]

I would never question her record which, as you say, is clearly impeccable. She's endorsed by some some really heavy hitters in the civil rights movement...and that's enough for me. But we teeter, precariously, at 4-4 now...w/ a conservative (Kennedy) as the swing. Do we really want to take that chance? Otherwise, your comments are well received. Sorry if I offended. I can't imagine, even if they were to serve together for 20 years, influencing the likes of Clarence Thomas enough to make such a difference that he would vote contrary to Antonin Scalia for the first time in his life.

[TheyCalledMeSandN]

not good