As discussed here a few weeks back, much speculation will occur over the remained of this year about the future of Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Since the implosion of the American economy and the election of Barack Obama, she’s been rumored to be a candidate for several positions within his organization or for the U.S. Surpeme Court.
Then Justice John Paul Stevens hinted in the New Yorker that he may retire after this term. If a spot opened up, would Granholm have a shot? Not really, says Lawyers USA:
Gov. Jennifer Granholm
Obama has often stated that he’d like to look for Supreme Court candidates from places outside of the federal judiciary (all the current justices are former federal appellate judges).
The Michigan governor, who previously served as attorney general of the state would satisfy that criteria. And like Stevens, Granholm, 51, hails from the Midwest, which would help keep the Court’s geographic balance. But having never faced a Senate confirmation hearing, her odds aren’t as good as those of Kagan, Wood or Garland.
“Kagen” is former Harvard Law dean and current Solicitor General Elena Kagan; “Wood” is U.S. 7th Cir. Court of Appeals judge Diane Wood. Garland; and “Garland” is D.C. Circuit judge Merrick Garland.
According to Lawyers USA, Kagan would likely have the advantage because of her age (49), history (nothing objectionable) and she has already been confirmed for her current position by the Senate.
The article said her lack of federal judiciary experience would be a plus for Granholm, but she’d be less attractive of a candidate because she’s never been through the confirmation process.
Perhaps there was an ulterior motive for the recent written smackdown letter she sent to Michigan attorney general Mike Cox in support of the new health care law. Did she attach her resume?
Pingback: The Michigan lawyer and his everyday tax problems: Being a revision of the 1943 edition as to the following: Distribution of estates and drafting of wills, … Personal life insurance and annuities | About Annuities
I agree it is appropriate to look beyond the Article III Judiciary for High Court Nominees, but on what basis is Granholm any kind of distinguished legal scholar, much less a judge? A nominee should at least be a noteworthy state appellate judge or renowned professor of law.