Supreme Court Handicapping

There seems to be a remarkable consensus that Obama’s shortlist for the Supreme Court consists of just three people: Elena Kagan, Diane Wood, and Merrick Garland. What’s more, the conventional wisdom seems to be slowly congealing that Kagan is the favorite because she’s a bit more centrist than the others and Obama doesn’t really need a big fight in the Senate this summer.

But is that really true? To the extent that he takes politics into account with his choice, it seems to me that Wood is the best choice. The tea party fringe is going to find some reason to go ballistic over anyone Obama picks, so choosing a centrist doesn’t really help him there. All three are well enough qualified that they’re almost certain to be confirmed, so a centrist doesn’t really help him there either. But what could help him is building on the progress he made in closing the “enthusiasm gap” by passing healthcare reform last month. The liberal base is starting to get a little more excited about things these days, and nominating a liberal justice — which shows that Obama is willing to nominate a liberal justice — could (a) get lefty juices flowing, (b) potentially cause conservatives to score an own goal if some of their number go overboard on the attacks, and (c) do it all without really affecting the independent vote since Wood is, after all, perfectly well qualified.

Plus she got her law degree from the University of Texas! I still haven’t forgiven UT for this — and I probably never will — but at least it’s west of the Mississippi. Fight the league, President Obama!

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate