[Clintonfatigued]

While Roe vs. Wade is undoubtedly of importance, the concern over that and other social issues is offsetting other issues that are less provocative, but have more effect on more people. If Obama chooses a justice with expertise in an area of Constitutional law that the others lack, he or she could become a more influential member than anyone expeects.

[Paladin2]

WE could use someone with conservative expertise in the private property and copyright law areas.

[Theodore R.]

When one thinks about it, it is not possible to “replace” Souter. Why? Whoever fills the seat will vote on automatic pilot exactly as Souter would have if he were still there. And Souter knows that. Thanks, Sununu, Sr., and GHWB!

[nathanbedford]

In turn, all of this suggests that Obama--to the extent he's interested in making a good government choice--ought to be asking himself, "what area of expertise does the current court lack that I think it needs"?

There is the rub, to believe that Obama is interested in making a "good government choice" is like believing that Obama really wants to find "common ground" to reduce abortion. Because of cases like Roe V. Wade in which the court has become aggressively interventionist as it has become increasingly detached from the Constitution, the court has become decreasingly related to "good government" to the degree that that phrase has any relationship whatsoever to the meaning of the Constitution.

Obama will do what every Democrat president since John F. Kennedy has done, he will appoint an ideologue to the court to advance a leftist agenda. Republicans in the Senate will look for "common ground" and the Constitution will be further debauched and "good government" will mean whatever five berobed tyrants says it means.

[truthandlife]

He will serve up “red meat” for his kook left base. The nominee will be strongly pro-abort and pro-homosexual rights. This will be the only qualification Obama will make for this candidate he will serve up.