Maya Angelou or (acceptable white male) George Clooney

Well, even if the candidate were bad and the GOP's objections were valid, the Dems in Obama's administration, Congress, and the media would portray it otherwise.

But to the main issue: Obama can choose pretty much anyone he wants. He's at the plate (US metaphor) but gets to play tee ball. The GOP can pretend to pitch against him from the mound but the Dems own the place (not just Obama). The only question will be the matter of degree, liberal activist versus liberal non-activist (true jurist instead), and liberal within the judicial establishment versus outside it. We have to wait for the name and for the background (more important than the hearing-circus, that won't be anywhere as crazy or scummy as the Bork attack or the treatment of Thomas — you'll see a saint being defended against the GOP heathens instead).

I'm actually intrigued to see who Obama chooses. And if it's suitable, so be it. Hopefully the hearings will go through rapidly so the PC crowd and wacky defenders of activism will shut up and go away soon. They're already due for it.

But that's the lightweight issue. More substantial is that the defenders of judicial activism (resentful of those on the Court who pursue law instead of activism and lib-Dem interests) have rushed out of the woodwork and already are clamoring for an activist.

I suspect Obama will make an intelligent choice (not another Miers) and the real question will be how activist the choice will be versus what the extremists actually want or how power-crazed the Dems will be, to what degree of overt irresponsibility. To what extent will they feel “betrayed” if Obama makes an intelligent and _sensible_ choice instead of meeting activists dreams (or PC-dolts' quota-filling demands)?

It's a lot of responsibility for the Dems in Congress (to muzzle the worst of their activist lot) as well as the Obama people (and any similar tendencies they have sought to contain or even conceal). Obama is in the big leagues with this choice and with the Dems' power in Congress he's effectively getting to hit the baseball off a tee (even if the Republicans pretend to pitch from the mound).

Obama is worrisome when he mentions “empathy” as a criterion for selecting a candidate. Is this a sop to the activist mob or is it a veiled warning to us? If he wants someone outside the formal or strict judiciary, is it going to be a lefty-style celeb from Congress or the state houses or the Executive branch? That he may view Earl Warren as a model raises a red flag to knowledgeable people who value rule of law over activism. Is it just fluff to the fluff-minds who only know about Brown and maybe Roe, too? Or is it actually more serious a threat?

I doubt any Harriet Miers. Some have thought about Deval Patrick. That seems a stretch, but what about someone Obama knows and has worked with before, and is working with now, that in no way would be a Miers, and could well reveal plenty of qualifications? Eric Holder.

Just watching all the exploding Republican Heads…

Jazz's warning about a Democratic “Harriet Miers” is well-taken, though. That would surely be a self-defeating decision by Obama.

With luck, we will all be spared GOP whining and complaining about Obama's lack of bipartisanship in appointing a well-qualified liberal.

Elections have consequences . . . the GOP should get over it!