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 get why both parties care so much about youth. Because people are living longer, I am not seeing the big difference between judges who are 45 and 53!
That's a fair point but if people are living into their 80s or even 90s, not sure that eight years in the big scheme of things matters. Also, we're assuming that judges remain static in their views and judicial approach but they're still human beings who evolve and can change their views and their approach.
This Washington Post article does a good job of explaining why youth matters. I don't know that it matters much in any individual case, but in the aggregate, across all an administration's nominations, I think it makes a difference.
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.
To add to your list, Eisenhower put Brennan, a Democrat, on the Court because going into an election he wanted to name a Catholic. And there has been a Jewish seat starting with Cardozo. The Breyer seat, by the way, is the Jewish seat, and Kruger may qualify. As for privileged backgrounds with Ivy League degrees, no one could say Sotomayor or Ginsburg, to name two, had such backgrounds.
Gorsuch also grew up in privilege, I believe; his mother was a Cabinet official, after all. I don't know how wealthy the family was, but they definitely moved in the circles of the powerful.
Score one for the privileged. The close call is Kagan. Her father was a tenants rights lawyer and her mother was a public school teacher. So they weren't rich. But she did get to go to Hunter College High School and then onto the Ivies.
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 get why both parties care so much about youth. Because people are living longer, I am not seeing the big difference between judges who are 45 and 53!
I see about eight years. Two presidential terms. Think about how much influence Justice Thomas has had.
That's a fair point but if people are living into their 80s or even 90s, not sure that eight years in the big scheme of things matters. Also, we're assuming that judges remain static in their views and judicial approach but they're still human beings who evolve and can change their views and their approach.
This Washington Post article does a good job of explaining why youth matters. I don't know that it matters much in any individual case, but in the aggregate, across all an administration's nominations, I think it makes a difference.
https://wapo.st/3AlH43Y
This is a good article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
They are evolving less than they used to.
It's so depressing.
Depends on one's point of view.
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.
To add to your list, Eisenhower put Brennan, a Democrat, on the Court because going into an election he wanted to name a Catholic. And there has been a Jewish seat starting with Cardozo. The Breyer seat, by the way, is the Jewish seat, and Kruger may qualify. As for privileged backgrounds with Ivy League degrees, no one could say Sotomayor or Ginsburg, to name two, had such backgrounds.
Yes to all this. Not to generalize about the Ivies who I know, but most of them did NOT grow up in wealthy households.
Kavanaugh, among others, certainly did.
Gorsuch also grew up in privilege, I believe; his mother was a Cabinet official, after all. I don't know how wealthy the family was, but they definitely moved in the circles of the powerful.
Score one for the privileged. The close call is Kagan. Her father was a tenants rights lawyer and her mother was a public school teacher. So they weren't rich. But she did get to go to Hunter College High School and then onto the Ivies.
I thought that too right after I wrote my comment.
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.