Top Law Schools

I'm thinking Kagan. Why not?

Diane Wood is DOUBLE UTTTexas.

wood

Sigh. It's going to be 5.67 Harvard, 3 Yale, and 0.33 Columbia.

公诉人 wrote:wood

MidlawMyth wrote:Diane Wood is DOUBLE UTTTexas.

Are you guys kidding?

NOW v. Scheidler (in which Judge Wood performed a late-term abortion from the bench, devouring the fetus) will stop that from happening.

the dude from Montana

anyone listen to NPR's little tidbit about the candidates today? If not, it looks like Harvard is gonna pwn again.

nick637 wrote:anyone listen to NPR's little tidbit about the candidates today? If not, it looks like Harvard is gonna pwn again.

You betting on Garland or Kagan?

flcath wrote:

公诉人 wrote:wood

MidlawMyth wrote:Diane Wood is DOUBLE UTTTexas.

Are you guys kidding?

NOW v. Scheidler (in which Judge Wood performed a late-term abortion from the bench, devouring the fetus) will stop that from happening.

This. Especially in light of the Nebraska bill that was just signed. She'd be my first choice, but Kagen will get the nod instead.

I find it interesting that in a country that is majority protestant, if Obama does not select Wood then there will be no protestants on the court. Pretty startling if you think about it. 6 Catholics and 2 Jews.

Small caveat--I'm not sure of Garland's religion.

Rand M. wrote:I find it interesting that in a country that is majority protestant, if Obama does not select Wood then there will be no protestants on the court. Pretty startling if you think about it. 6 Catholics and 2 Jews.

Small caveat--I'm not sure of Garland's religion.

Law of small numbers. It's impossible to get a representative sample with only 9 seats.

Renzo wrote:

Rand M. wrote:I find it interesting that in a country that is majority protestant, if Obama does not select Wood then there will be no protestants on the court. Pretty startling if you think about it. 6 Catholics and 2 Jews.

Small caveat--I'm not sure of Garland's religion.

Law of small numbers. It's impossible to get a representative sample with only 9 seats.

Yeah, but the odds of that are still pretty small, and you would expect the president to pander to the majority more than the minority in the selection of a SCOTUS justice.

I hope Napolitano gets it. This isn't just because it would give UVa representation, but that certainly does give a bonus to me.

vanwinkle wrote:I hope Napolitano gets it. This isn't just because it would give UVa representation, but that certainly does give a bonus to me.

Well if we are just rooting for the home team then I'm WOOD all the way. Having a "horse" in this race at all feels antithetical to everything I am. In a perfect world Obama would just give Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito two votes. Oh well. Judge Wood ftw.

Rand M. wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:I hope Napolitano gets it. This isn't just because it would give UVa representation, but that certainly does give a bonus to me.

Well if we are just rooting for the home team then I'm WOOD all the way. Having a "horse" in this race at all feels antithetical to everything I am. In a perfect world Obama would just give Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito two votes. Oh well. Judge Wood ftw.

Wood would give Chicago the POTUS and a SCOTUS judge from their faculty. With that prestige boost and an increase in faculty with no change in student body, I smell a future T3.

Rand M. wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:I hope Napolitano gets it. This isn't just because it would give UVa representation, but that certainly does give a bonus to me.

Well if we are just rooting for the home team then I'm WOOD all the way. Having a "horse" in this race at all feels antithetical to everything I am. In a perfect world Obama would just give Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito two votes. Oh well. Judge Wood ftw.

Wait. In a perfect world, a liberal president would give one of the conservative activist judges two votes? WTF?

I'm not just pulling for Napolitano because she's from here. I honestly think she'd do really well at the job. I do like the idea of someone from UVa getting it, but I wouldn't drop her name like that unless I thought she was a legitimate contender for it.

Wood is too old. Obama will probably want to go younger.

badfish wrote:Wood is too old. Obama will probably want to go younger.

Well if that's the case, I would nominate Ken.

Koh? Anybody for Koh?

clintonius wrote:Koh? Anybody for Koh?

I think Nadamkang Suh should get the pick, he certainly earned it over the last four years... wait, what were we talking about?

vanwinkle wrote:

clintonius wrote:Koh? Anybody for Koh?

I think Nadamkang Suh should get the pick, he certainly earned it over the last four years... wait, what were we talking about?

Haha +1

romothesavior wrote:

badfish wrote:Wood is too old. Obama will probably want to go younger.

Well if that's the case, I would nominate Ken.

Ken De Leon? He might have an uphill battle for confirmation in the Senate. I´d vote for him for TLS´s contribution to my 0L paranoia.

Luis Gomez wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

badfish wrote:Wood is too old. Obama will probably want to go younger.

Well if that's the case, I would nominate Ken.

Ken De Leon? He might have an uphill battle for confirmation in the Senate. I´d vote for him for TLS´s contribution to my 0L paranoia.

Yes, Ken De Leon. I was going to nominate neskerdoo or Desert Fox, but their posting history on TLS and the fact they haven't finished LS would probably hinder their confirmation.

Elena Kagan is the youngest name seriously being considered. I think this gives her the edge; she has got to be the odds on favorite at this point. She is not favored against the field or anything, but I wouldn't bet on anyone over her.

Rand M. wrote:Elena Kagan is the youngest name seriously being considered. I think this gives her the edge; she has got to be the odds on favorite at this point. She is not favored against the field or anything, but I wouldn't bet on anyone over her.

Too conservative. I think Obama will be careful not to tip the balance of the court. IMO, replacing Stevens with Kagan would be disastrous for purposes of balancing.