Stevens Replacements: Who Will Be The Next Supreme Court Nominee? (PHOTOS)

Here are the top contenders to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who announced on Friday that he will retire from the Supreme Court this summer.

The list of possible nominees is based on Huffington Post interviews with a number of prominent Supreme Court scholars and observers:

1 of 11

Elena Kagan

1 of 12

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

There appears to be a growing consensus that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is the front-runner for the position. Kagan comes armed with a formidable set of credentials: Associate White House Counsel during the Clinton Administration; Professor and then Dean of Harvard Law School; and now, Solicitor General of the United States, the appointee tasked with representing the U.S. Government in cases before the Supreme Court. At Harvard, Kagan forged a reputation for herself as a savvy consensus-builder, uniting a factious faculty divided along ideological lines. "She has a terrific political sense," says Charles Fried, Professor at Harvard Law School and Solicitor General in the Reagan administration. "She knows how to frame issues so that people see things her way." Her interpersonal political prowess shone through in a law school then plagued by inertia. "The faculty had been divided politically on left-right grounds and had difficulty making [faculty] appointments," explains Harvard Professor Mark Tushnet. "But she was able to break the logjam by explaining to people that the law school was stagnating and that it could move forward only if it overcame these issues." On a fractured Court with an ascendant right wing, her capacity for persuasive diplomacy could prove pivotal. Equally in Kagan's favor is the absence of a potentially compromising legal paper trail. In the wake of a bruising health care debate, it's likely that President Obama will want to minimize the amount of political capital he expends on a Supreme Court nominee. "Kagan is unique in that, like Justice John Roberts, she's universally respected but hasn't written on divisive topics that could make confirmation difficult," says University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Theodore Ruger. Kagan, 49, also has youth on her side. Opting for a young Supreme Court nominee has traditionally allowed a President to extend his influence beyond his term in office and cement his political legacy, a trend that arguably started with President Reagan's appointment of Antonin Scalia, who was 50 at the time of his nomination to the bench.

Sarah Palin: Jeremiah Wright Is Fair Game (VIDEO)

Scott Walker Recall Leaders Prep Final Push In Effort To Regain Momentum

Alan Simpson: 'What A Wretched Group Of Seniors You Must Be'

Notre Dame, Catholic Groups Suing Obama Administration Over Birth Control Mandate

Michelle Obama Wants To Trade Places With Beyonce

Obama Air Force Academy Graduation: President In Colorado For Commencement Address

There appears to be a growing consensus that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is the front-runner for the position. Kagan comes armed with a formidable set of credentials: Associate White House Counsel during the Clinton Administration; Professor and then Dean of Harvard Law School; and now, Solicitor General of the United States, the appointee tasked with representing the U.S. Government in cases before the Supreme Court.

At Harvard, Kagan forged a reputation for herself as a savvy consensus-builder, uniting a factious faculty divided along ideological lines.

"She has a terrific political sense," says Charles Fried, Professor at Harvard Law School and Solicitor General in the Reagan administration. "She knows how to frame issues so that people see things her way."

Her interpersonal political prowess shone through in a law school then plagued by inertia.

"The faculty had been divided politically on left-right grounds and had difficulty making [faculty] appointments," explains Harvard Professor Mark Tushnet. "But she was able to break the logjam by explaining to people that the law school was stagnating and that it could move forward only if it overcame these issues."

On a fractured Court with an ascendant right wing, her capacity for persuasive diplomacy could prove pivotal.

Equally in Kagan's favor is the absence of a potentially compromising legal paper trail. In the wake of a bruising health care debate, it's likely that President Obama will want to minimize the amount of political capital he expends on a Supreme Court nominee.

"Kagan is unique in that, like Justice John Roberts, she's universally respected but hasn't written on divisive topics that could make confirmation difficult," says University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Theodore Ruger.

Kagan, 49, also has youth on her side. Opting for a young Supreme Court nominee has traditionally allowed a President to extend his influence beyond his term in office and cement his political legacy, a trend that arguably started with President Reagan's appointment of Antonin Scalia, who was 50 at the time of his nomination to the bench.

comments(388)

Total comments: 388 | Post a Comment

1 of 12

This Potential Nominee

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Unlikely Very Likely

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Possible Justices

loading...

Possible Justices

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[GREYDOG]

05:17 PM on 04/12/2010

I support the nomination of Dr. Cornel West for the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Daniel Doyle]

12:01 PM on 04/12/2010

Damnit Huffington Post. This poll is worthless. Your scale is likely to unlikely, no least preferable to most preferable. Some people will vote for what they think will happen, and some will vote for what they'd like to see happen. The results will be complete crap for this reason. You could at least be clear in what you ask your participants.

[MuchMadness]

03:38 PM on 04/10/2010

Which of these possible nominees is willing to overturn bad decisions like Citizens United v. FEC and Roe v. Wade? Which ones are willing to agree that the recent health care reform act and the Defense of Marriage act that President Clinton signed were both legitimate, constitutional exercises of congressional authority? Which ones will serve as a check against the anti-constitutional growth of executive power that has been a trend in U.S. politics over the past thirty years?

[Roy Piper]

02:39 PM on 04/10/2010

I do not understand everyone's obsession with making sure there are X amount of women or Z amount of certain races on the Supreme Court. I care more about the minds, reasoning and mental abilities of the people on the court than what they look like on the outside. Their decisions look the same on paper regardless of the color or sex of the writer.

[Roy Piper]

02:35 PM on 04/10/2010

I say Hillary!

[LIBERALandProudOfIt]

06:44 AM on 04/10/2010

To show that he is still dreaming about bipartisanship, Obama will nominate the most right-wing whack-job judge in the nation. That is not what I voted for!

[quad11]

09:41 AM on 04/10/2010

Fine, vote for Nader and enjoy 8 years of Gingrich-Palin nominees. Stevens was appointed by Ford, back when Repub's weren't overrun by Tea Party nut cases. Kudos if Obama chooses in that tradition.

[gypsy508]

01:11 PM on 04/10/2010

Funny how the one argument Democrats always tell people considering voting for Nader is the Supreme Court argument and then you get a right winger....I will keep voting for Nader because as even you say, it doesn't make a difference

[MuchMadness]

02:48 AM on 04/10/2010

How about appointing a justice who disagrees with Roe v. Wade, as many Democratic voters do? We need to make pro life Democrats feel that their views are respected.

[waitforme]

12:02 AM on 04/10/2010

Presumably that's what Kagan looks like. But Obama must be ignorant of health facts -- despite a year of talking about preventive health care for a year, and despite his wife's campaigns for good nutrition and against overweight; wasn't he listening? -- he should see that someone this overweight is in line for a heart attack, or diabetes, etc. etc. She shouldn't even be considered. Already we have Sotomayor who is overweight and has diabetes. We need someone with statistical longevity!

[TrueBud]

09:31 AM on 04/10/2010

Are you kidding me? Well by that logic, men statistically die quicker than women, so therefore there should never be another man appointed to the Supreme Court. Der....

[educatedfoolz]

11:22 PM on 04/09/2010

5 picks, in no particular order:

Melissa Harris-Lacewell
Jonathan Turley
Laurence Tribe
Morris Dees
Kathleen Sullivan

[Timetheos]

11:06 PM on 04/09/2010

"In the wake of a bruising health care debate, it's likely that President Obama will want to minimize the amount of political capital he expends on a Supreme Court nominee." I"m sorry, but that is a really dumb reason. SC appointments are for a lifetime.

[quad11]

09:43 AM on 04/10/2010

Yeah, like Obama discusses his private reasons for selecting an as-yet-unknown choice with Shriram Harid or you. Don't let it stop you from pre-emptive rock-throwing, though.

[RDRohan]

10:53 PM on 04/09/2010

Wow, thanks for the incredibly unhelpful commentary. Would it at all be possible to provide information regarding specific legal positions, jurisprudences, interrogative methods, or ethical justifications? Or am I only supposed to measure these folks 1) according to how they are positioned on some pre-given, incomprehensibly reductionist notion of the left-right political "continuum" and 2) according to how much "political capital" Obama wants to "spend"?
Political identities are fragmented and overlapping. Judicial "identities" are even more so. Effacing both simultaneously is particularly vulgar journalism.

[emory]

09:28 PM on 04/09/2010

Sarah Palin for Supreme Court Justice. Lets have the debate, is she qulified. let the republicans answer that?

[ebk36]

08:51 PM on 04/09/2010

Harold Koh, former Yale Law School dean (2004-09), would be my choice. It's about time that a person of Asian heritage fills the seat. I think a diverse set of justices would be ideal. He was born in Boston, MA but grew up in Connecticut.

Current justices:

GINSBURG - Jewish (Columbia Law) - born in Brooklyn, NY
BREYER - Jewish (Harvard Law) - born in San Francisco, CA
SOTOMAYOR - Roman Catholic Puerto Rican-American (Yale Law) - born in Bronx, NY
THOMAS - Roman Catholic African-American (Yale Law) - born in Pin Point, GA
KENNEDY - Roman Catholic (Harvard Law) - born in Sacramento, CA
SCALIA - Roman Catholic Italian-American (Harvard Law) - born Trenton, NJ. Father=Sicilian immigrant.
ALITO - Roman Catholic Caucasian (Yale Law) - born in Trenton, NJ. Father=Italian immigrant.
STEVENS - Protestant Caucasian (Northwestern Law) - born Chicago, IL
ROBERTS - Roman Catholic Caucasian (Harvard Law) - born in Buffalo, NY. Maternal great grandparents=Czechoslovakians.

This of course, is my own personal view....

[CentralVA]

09:03 PM on 04/09/2010

Koh would be a great choice: he's is a titan in the field of international law and served as Dean of Yale Law School.

Two other standouts: Pamela Karlan (a Stanford professor and one of the best Supreme Court advocates ever) and Elena Kagan (former Harvard Law Dean and current Soliciter General).

[Thomasina Jefferson]

01:02 AM on 04/10/2010

Interesting to look at the religious denominations. It's rather uniform, isn't it.

[ebk36]

08:42 PM on 04/09/2010

Harold Koh, former Yale Law School dean (2004-09), would be my choice. It's about time that a person of Asian heritage fills the seat. I think a diverse set of justices would be ideal. He was born in Boston, MA but grew up in Connecticut.

Current justices:

GINSBURG - Jewish (Columbia Law) - born in Brooklyn, NY
BREYER - Jewish (Harvard Law) - born in San Francisco, CA
SOTOMAYOR - Roman Catholic Puerto Rican-American (Yale Law) - born in Bronx, NY
Clarence Thomas - Roman Catholic African-American (Yale Law) - born in Pin Point, GA
KENNEDY - Roman Catholic (Harvard Law) - born in Sacramento, CA
SCALIA - Roman Catholic Italian-American (Harvard Law) - born Trenton, NJ. Father=Sicilian immigrant.
ALITO - Roman Catholic Caucasian (Yale Law) - born in Trenton, NJ. Father=Italian immigrant.
STEVENS - Protestant Caucasian (Northwestern Law) - born Chicago, IL
ROBERTS - Roman Catholic Caucasian (Harvard Law) - born in Buffalo, NY. Maternal great grandparents=Czechoslovakians.

This of course, is my own personal view....

[ebk36]

08:55 PM on 04/09/2010

Plus, we need a Red Sox loyalist to counter all of those New Yorkers/New Jerseyers = Roberts. Alito. Scalia. Sotomayor, Ginsburg.

[MuchMadness]

02:42 AM on 04/10/2010

The court definitely needs a Lutheran from North Dakota or Minnesota, or maybe a Methodist from Nebraska.

[Dave Bee]

08:08 PM on 04/09/2010

its insulting that when the GOP is in the white house they can nominate any right wing conservative they want, but when the dems are in power, we need to be careful that a candidate isnt too progressive. it is thoroughly depressing

[waitforme]

09:40 PM on 04/09/2010

Amen.

[quad11]

09:46 AM on 04/10/2010

It's called being better than them and hoping that the nation returns to its senses. Consider that Stevens was a Ford nominee.

[Dave Bee]

12:51 AM on 04/13/2010

being progressive IS being better