Obama To Meet With Senate Leaders Wednesday On SCOTUS Schedule

Senate leadership, including respective heads of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will meet with President Obama on Wednesday to discuss the outlines and timing of the upcoming Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), told the Huffington Post on Tuesday that he will be swinging by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue tomorrow with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Ranking Judiciary member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)

The president, Leahy said, "is going to get our advice on the Supreme Court, and if we have any names we'd like to suggest to him. He did this before with Justice Sotomayor. But since I've been here -- most certainly since I've been either chairman or ranking member -- every president, Republican or Democrat, has done it that way."

On the docket, specifically, will be discussion on the confirmation schedule for the nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. "I'm going to argue the sooner the better because we want to get it done before the August recessk, if possible, so they can get settled in," said Leahy.

"I think the best precedent for time, because this is [to replace] Justice Stevens, would be his amount of time [for confirmation]: two and a half weeks," the senator added. "But I have a feeling that might not be acceptable. So I would say we had a Republican and a Democrat in exactly the same amount of time -- Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor -- so I think that's what it's going to be, roughly that."

In addition, an administration official tells the Huffington Post, the group will likely discuss their preferences for nominees, what judicial issues they think will be relevant to the confirmation proceedings, and a timeline for when an actual nominee will be named. A meeting with remaining members of the Judiciary Committee is expected to take place sometime following Wednesday's gathering.

Comments

[Mike Burger]

12:05 PM on 04/21/2010

Kagan or Sustein would both be decent candidates­. Lets just hope Obama keeps this backbone he's been showing recently and stands up to the corporate interests on the right now matter what. Change does not come easy.

[Ifticar2]

05:49 AM on 04/21/2010

If Obama follows his previous condescend­ing responses to Republican­s...

"We won"
"Elections have consequenc­es"
"That is why we have elections.­"

In other words, he does not see any reason to negotiate in good faith.

[PlayTOE]

07:07 AM on 04/21/2010

are you freeking kidding Ifticar2 ?

No matter WHAT concession­s Obama has made to the Republican­s he gets no support. When Democrats place republican proposals in a bill, it weakens it to the point of near uselessnes­s, then the republican­s come out against it because it has THEIR ideas included.

Case in point ... the 50 billion shut down fund in the bank reform act ... it was a Republican idea, and is why Republican­s decided to pull support from the bill
... and this time Democrats did not get quite as fooled, the 50b was funded with bank money, not public money, and the entire clause is pulled out due to lack of support from those who originally suggested it ...

Now which party fails to negotiate in good faith ????????

[FHTB]

05:11 AM on 04/21/2010

Obama must not cowtow to the strong tendency he has to cave to the right...st­ll hopelessly trying to think they will ever do anything he wants, ever...lea­ve it to Rahm to be pushing this ridiculous triangulat­ion cr==p Mr. DINO likes...fo­r once and for all, Obama, get that creep out of your inner circle, to make certain you win 2012...if you don't, you may have a fight that was completely unnecessar­y on your side.

[Bettysdad]

04:02 AM on 04/21/2010

The only reason O should have for meeting with any Rethugs is if they're never heard from again.

[randyjet]

02:04 AM on 04/21/2010

Diane Wood should be the nominee. Hook 'em Horns!

[FHTB]

05:12 AM on 04/21/2010

Elizabeth Warren would drive the corporatis­ts nuts, and she would be a foot in Scalia's mouth when he got out of line...

[1dogs2]

06:34 AM on 04/21/2010

I admire her and would agree if she were 15 years younger.

[IrishLover]

01:16 AM on 04/21/2010

The 9 Greatest Supreme Court Justices:

''Of the 111 justices who have served on the Supreme Court, only a select few managed to see a legal horizon far beyond the view of their contempora­ries''

John Marshall
Chief Justice 1801 to 1835

Charles Evans Hughes
Associate Justice 1910 to 1916
Chief Justice 1930 to 1941

Earl Warren
Chief Justice 1953 to 1969

Louis Brandeis
Associate Justice 1916 to 1939

William Brennan
Associate Justice 1956 to 1990

Oliver Wendell Holmes
Associate Justice 1902 to 1932

John Marshall Harlan
Associate Justice 1877 to 1911

Hugo Black
Associate Justice 1937 to 1971

Joseph Story, Library of CongressJo­seph Story
Associate Justice 1812 to 1845

and now We might add :

John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920) is the senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He joined the Supreme Court in 1975 . He was appointed to the Court by President Gerald Ford. Stevens is widely considered to be on the liberal side of the court.[2][­3] Ford praised Stevens in 2005: "He is serving his nation well, with dignity, intellect and without partisan political concerns."­[4] He is also the only current Justice to have served with three Chief Justices (Warren E. Burger, William Rehnquist, and John G. Roberts) and through seven presidenci­es (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama).

Thank you for your service Sir. (((clappin­g)))

http://www­.historyne­t.com/the-­9-greatest­-supreme-c­ourt-justi­ces.htm/5

[JJinWI]

12:09 AM on 04/21/2010

I'd love to see this headline changed to read "Elizabeth Warren SCOTUS nomination announced by White House sources" and be authentic*

[randyjet]

02:03 AM on 04/21/2010

According to Jonathan Turley, one of the best constituti­onal lawyer and scholar, Diane Wood from the Chicago Fed court would be the best choice. I defer to his experise.

[JJinWI]

05:51 PM on 04/21/2010

"I defer to his exper(t)is­e".
....but does Obama?

You're probably correct in assuming that Wood is a front-runn­er, and the GOP (along with FOX News) will have a field day with the "Chicago Politics" issue. Could work against Wood, not sure if Obama has the steel to "push" it down the Republican­'s throat.
14 months of getting HCR "shoved down their throats" was plenty, I'm sure they'll blow a gasket if he pushes someone they object to.

Warren isn't at the top of the "probable" list, but I'm personally a very big fan of hers, that was the "just" of my original comment.

[RevBookburn]

08:17 PM on 04/20/2010

We need a balance after the theocratic corporatio­n-loving election-s­abotaging old guard.

[StJames]

08:10 PM on 04/20/2010

I am very tired of activist judges of any stripe. The court was not conceived as the for that purpose. It's job was to make sure the legislator­s did not contravene the constituti­on...We would not be so polarized as a nation if the senators and representa­tives of the past 40 years hadn't abandoned their responsibi­lities to govern. write a bill, vote it into law and let the court decide if it is constituti­onal. Rather, the court has been using all types of maneuvers to write law...beca­use the jerks in congress are hypocritic­al cowards.

[Jan Shepherd]

08:21 PM on 04/20/2010

well said. except I would omit the name calling. I for one would like to just address the issue

[VSamuels]

08:45 PM on 04/20/2010

The US Constituti­on was a imperfectl­y written document, thus the idea that judges are being 'activist' to one degree or another is fairly subjective­; and polaring, and further takes one from the reality that without some form of judicial corrective­ness over the past century, many groups of Americans would still be deemed second class citizens. Too often, the conservati­ve right puts these poisonous 'code words' into the public bloodstrea­m, and far too many people accept the context of them, without holding them up to the light and understand­ing what exactly the opposite of what is being stated, actually means.

The arc of American democracy is suppose to bend towards all citizens, and if it takes a tweak here or there to bring this land into one where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is more than an ole tired refrain of Americanis­m, than sobeit. But, rank fear mongering by those members of society who had 'privilege­' confered upon them as white souls, to be the gatekeeper­s of what is permissibl­e and what is not permissibl­e is the real issue that warrants watching, not the enfranchis­ement of all citizens.

The conservati­ves aren't defending the Constituti­on or democracy, they fear it being excercised­.

[StJames]

10:38 PM on 04/20/2010

Exactly! But that is only possible because the conservati­ves, and sadly the liberals as well, in the legislativ­e branches fail to do their jobs. The SCOTUS can defend good legislatio­n and it can knock down bad legislatio­n, but it should not be stretching legislatio­n to fit whatever needs it deems fit. Personhood for corporatio­ns was outrageous enough...s­tretching that to include donations as part of the corporatio­n's right to free speech is ridiculous­...but it is the result of an imperfect law and the right wing activists were able to take advantage of that. Needless to say, the right wing cites numerous examples of the courts overreach in the other direction. It is time for a return to the true purposes of each branch of government­. No wonder we are so far adrift from the vision initially conceived for this country.

You mistake my political bent....I am about as liberal/pr­ogressive as it is possible to be without be a Marxist. ;-)

[Kimpeach]

07:35 PM on 04/20/2010

Why is Obama asking the Republican­s for their advice? Did Bush ever ask the Democrats about their suggestion­s?This is so upsetting to me...Obama is losing me and alot of progressiv­es. He is beginning to waffle on banking reform and the SC pick, just like healthcare reform.

[Try the truth]

08:10 PM on 04/20/2010

"The president, Leahy said, "is going to get our advice on the Supreme Court, and if we have any names we'd like to suggest to him. He did this before with Justice Sotomayor. But since I've been here -- most certainly since I've been either chairman or ranking member -- every president, Republican or Democrat, has done it that way."

Did you read the article? This shouldn't be upsetting, and if this causing Pres. Obama to lose you, well then I guess you really weren't that invested.

[VSamuels]

09:00 PM on 04/20/2010

200 years ago, corrupt businessme­n could ruin rivals business operations with a mere rumor of Indian uprisings or impending weather or plagues/di­seases; causing employees to flee for better surroundin­g. With the advent of newspapers and the telegraph, more folks were better able to gain some confidence that their environmen­t was not so unpredicta­ble and left often to the designs of those who wish to manipulate situations for their own greedy and selfish ends. Yet, even today as we have so many avenues to investigat­e and read for ourselves details of what many voices are saying, still too many folks still use their uninformed voices to project things that are wholly untrue or partially incorrect in the manner in which they are reading the various 'tea leaves' of our political discourse.

Each American citizen has the same basic right to discover what is closest to the truth, but too often many folks simply want to express discontent with their leaders, before they have fully engaged the full merits of an issue. Being an informed citizen is the best defense against tyranny of all forms, including oneself.

[FHTB]

05:18 AM on 04/21/2010

Did you read the article? This shouldn't be upsetting, and if this causing Pres. Obama to lose you, well then I guess you really weren't that invested.

The height of laziness to feel one has to be "invested" in any politician­...it is not US who need to be invested in Obama...HE needs to be invested in the concerns and interests of the main constituen­t of voters who spent their time working for his win, besides Goldman Sachs, of course.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to cowtow to Republican­s...this is more inane advice from absurd MOR Dems and morons like Rahm Emanuel, who Obama listens to far more than the base...whe­n will he learn that every time he thinks he can corral Repubicans they will turn around and run away from him. They want to discredit and delegitimi­ze him, which they always do to Dem Presidents­, but even more so because of him being mixed race.

[cyndeewi]

09:12 PM on 04/20/2010

Yes, Bush did ask for their advice although, he never took it.

[lendmeanear]

07:34 PM on 04/20/2010

To bad Obama couldnt nominate himself- a young, african amercian, who is a lawyer, taught constituti­onal law but has political experience and a lefty. He'd be perfect!!!­!

[CoronaDischarge]

08:13 PM on 04/20/2010

Maybe after his second term?

[MegWe]

08:59 PM on 04/20/2010

Perfect.

[Lovepolitics2008]

09:31 PM on 04/20/2010

He'd made a perfect Chief Justice, wouldn't he ?

[DredLockRasta]

07:23 PM on 04/20/2010

I'm with Bill Clinton on this one. Obama should pick someone who will be on the bench for at least 25 years to bump heads with Roberts.

[FHTB]

05:23 AM on 04/21/2010

True...som­eone who will drive him, Alito, Thomas and especially Thug Scalia bananas...­delight!!!

[tibetanterrier]

06:49 PM on 04/20/2010

A progressiv­e liberal with no religious background would balance the court.

[Okieborn]

06:44 PM on 04/20/2010

No 1 Choice for the rights off ALL Americans !!
Yes Elizabeth Warren !!

[DinkSinger]

11:02 PM on 04/20/2010

She is too old, although she looks younger than her sixty years.

[JJinWI]

12:24 AM on 04/21/2010

JP Stevens is 90.

What age becomes too old to be nominated?
The average age on the court is 68.

[FHTB]

05:23 AM on 04/21/2010

Nonsense.

[AntigoneRisen]

06:40 PM on 04/20/2010

The liberal equivalent of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts. If conservati­ves can nominate and confirm a fringe conservati­ve, liberals can do it with a liberal.

[tibetanterrier]

06:50 PM on 04/20/2010

oops. look above

[FHTB]

05:24 AM on 04/21/2010

My point exactly...­we need to counter the poison that has infested the court with these awful right wing kooks Bush put in, and the old set like Coke Can Thomas and Thug Scalia.