Well done! I think you've got the odds about right. But it's a shame about Kruger. She's got more appellate judicial experience than any other candidate plus solicitor general's office experience. And she would be the only judge since Souter (if I remember well) with state supreme court experience. Finally, to your point about age. Let's say the next Democratic appointment will be in 2029, when Kruger is 53. That POTUS could choose someone who is 45 then.
I agree with your analysis that Brown-Jackson will get the nomination. The NY Times piece, in my opinion, is disingenuous. Most Presidents who are nominating Supreme Court justices to some degree are doing "political favors" for their constituents. Reagan did that with nominating Sandra Day O'Connor, Bush with Clarence Thomas and Trump with this nominees. Also, many people with "elite" law school credentials don't always come from privileged backgrounds. Many Ivy law grads have modest upbringings and aren't admitted via some legacy program so while I understand Clyburn's urge to get a non-Ivy person on the bench, I don't agree with the assumption that all the Ivy grads have privileged upbringings. Also, I could care less what a judge worked on as a law firm associate. Back then, it's not like associates had all this power to reject matters that partners are giving them anyway.
I agree with your assessment but would really like to see the youngest candidate possible get nominated. It won't make a difference immediately, but it might down the road.
Well done! I think you've got the odds about right. But it's a shame about Kruger. She's got more appellate judicial experience than any other candidate plus solicitor general's office experience. And she would be the only judge since Souter (if I remember well) with state supreme court experience. Finally, to your point about age. Let's say the next Democratic appointment will be in 2029, when Kruger is 53. That POTUS could choose someone who is 45 then.
I agree with your analysis that Brown-Jackson will get the nomination. The NY Times piece, in my opinion, is disingenuous. Most Presidents who are nominating Supreme Court justices to some degree are doing "political favors" for their constituents. Reagan did that with nominating Sandra Day O'Connor, Bush with Clarence Thomas and Trump with this nominees. Also, many people with "elite" law school credentials don't always come from privileged backgrounds. Many Ivy law grads have modest upbringings and aren't admitted via some legacy program so while I understand Clyburn's urge to get a non-Ivy person on the bench, I don't agree with the assumption that all the Ivy grads have privileged upbringings. Also, I could care less what a judge worked on as a law firm associate. Back then, it's not like associates had all this power to reject matters that partners are giving them anyway.
I agree with your assessment but would really like to see the youngest candidate possible get nominated. It won't make a difference immediately, but it might down the road.