"Obama's Supreme Court nominee expected this week":
That's what Reuters is reporting, with the AP adding that Obama's pick could be announced as early as tomorrow. TheHill chimes in, "Given [Obama's] schedule this week -- including a trip to Las Vegas and Los Angeles on Tuesday and Wednesday -- speculation is that the president could make public his choice early Thursday or Friday."

  As always, stay tuned to the VC for lots of nominations-blogging when the pick is announced.
Other readers (and OK of course :) are invited to speculate on how tomorrow's upcoming California Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage may affect Obama's choice of timing the announcement.
5.25.2009 10:04pm
A Law Dawg:
Bill Kristol's "don't put money on my prediction" prediction on Sunday was an announcement Tuesday morning, and that the pick would be Jennifer Granholm.

We'll see if he is even 50% right.
5.25.2009 10:06pm
Given Bill Kristol's track record, I assume that means it's Kagan on Friday afternoon? ;-)
5.25.2009 10:16pm
Jeff Westcott (mail):
If I remember correctly, Bill Kristol correctly predicted that McCain would pick Palin.
5.25.2009 10:23pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):
Wardlaw and Sotomayor both have controversial cases pending. Would Obama nominate either of them so early, before knowing the outcome? Sotomayor's case especially, since its controversial not just on the merits but on the way it was decided.
5.25.2009 10:26pm
I do have to admit, all of Obama's talk about looking "outside the ivory tower" makes me wonder whether he might end up choosing someone like Granholm or Napolitano rather than Wood or Kagan.
5.25.2009 10:28pm
Meh Neh:
I don't think that Wardlaw's case (the strip search case) is particularly controversial anywhere outside of 1 First Street. Indeed, I'm willing to bet that close to 100% of the people in the world who think that a principal can root around in a little girl's panties to see if she has Advil are sitting Supreme Court Justices.

If anything, when the Court does reverse Wardlaw's decision, which seems likely, it would significantly increase the likelihood that she would be resoundingly confirmed.
5.25.2009 10:37pm
@Jeff Westcott: He was part of the conspiracy to appoint Palin, so that's not very remarkable. If it's Granholm, I'll eat an onion.
5.25.2009 10:37pm
Jeff Westcott,

For more on the reliability of Kristol's predictions, see here.
5.25.2009 10:40pm
Psalm91 (mail):
I would expect the Proposition 8 decision to work against my former colleague Justice Moreno.
5.25.2009 10:47pm
Psalm91 (mail):
"If I remember correctly, Bill Kristol correctly predicted that McCain would pick Palin."

Of course, Kristol doesn't have a crush on any of the current prospects.
5.25.2009 10:49pm
and we'll finally know what empathy means.
5.25.2009 11:27pm
A Law Dawg:
For more on the reliability of Kristol's predictions, see here.

To be fair to Kristol, nobody in December 2006 could have predicted the epic awfulness of Hillary's campaign.

Anybody who thought Huck would come anywhere close to getting the GOP nomination was an idiot, however.
5.26.2009 12:26am
Cornellian (mail):
Granholm and Wardlaw would be terrible choices, for different reasons. My guess is it will be Kagan.
5.26.2009 12:41am
It's difficult to predict this one. Obama doesn't seem to make appointments on any basis besides identity politics and contempt for tax law, and I don't think any of the women mentioned as favorites are tax cheats.
5.26.2009 2:53am
Perseus (mail):
I predict that it won't be announced on Friday (unless, for some reason, they don't want a lot of press coverage).
5.26.2009 4:25am
rosetta's stones:
Drudge says it's Sotomayor.
5.26.2009 8:34am
ruuffles (mail) (www):

Drudge says it's Sotomayor.

WOW. I hope they are ready when SCOTUS slaps down the 2nd circuit for their shenanigans.
5.26.2009 8:56am
ruuffles (mail) (www):
Also it says he's announcing at 10:15 am, which would put it right after any decisions are handed down, including the New Haven case. That will make for an interesting toss from whoever is covering the Supreme Court decisions to whoever is covering the White House.
5.26.2009 8:58am
Interesting point, ruuffles. Maybe the Supreme Court will deliver a harshly-worded reversal 2 hours after Judge Sotomayor's nomination is announced. It would make the day a bit more interesting, though I suppose both parties could get some good mileage out of that.
5.26.2009 9:35am
A Law Dawg:
Looks like Kristol was only half right, shockingly.
5.26.2009 9:46am
Guees you can never have too many Catholics on SCOTUS.
5.26.2009 9:51am
Guees Guess you can never have too many Catholics on SCOTUS.

Oh, the holidays.
5.26.2009 9:51am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.