Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

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!

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly 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