\nis reportedly
\nconsidering<\/a> about 10 people to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice
\nJohn Paul Stevens<\/a>, although popular consensus has quickly settled on just
\nthree: Elena Kagan, Diane Wood, and Merrick Garland. A National Journal poll<\/a> of court-watchers picked Kagan as the most likely, with Wood and Garland as the
\nonly close contenders.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Obama’s choice will <\/p>\n So here’s a look at the <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Courtesy Doc Searls<\/a> via Wikimedia Commons<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Elena Kagan<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n As Obama’s solicitor general<\/a>, Kagan represents the <\/p>\n One indicator of her <\/p>\n “For many years, <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Merrick Garland<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The District of Columbia <\/p>\n That won’t excite <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Courtesy Linda Rux<\/a> via Wikimedia Commons<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Diane Wood<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Wood sits on the <\/p>\n Wood’s position on that Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Chicago considers getting serious about coal pollution<\/a><\/p>\n Obama’s Earth Day message: ‘Change won’t come from Washington alone’ [VIDEO]<\/a><\/p>\n Sens. Kerry and Graham to unveil climate bill next week<\/a><\/p>\n
\nhave a direct bearing on climate policy, as the court is likely to hear a
\nnumber of consequential cases in the coming years. It already affirmed<\/a> the
\nEPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but the agency is facing new legal
\nchallenges<\/a> to that authority from the state of Texas, among others. If
\nCongress passes a climate bill, it would face similar challenges. And towns
\nsuch as Kivalina,
\nAlaska<\/a>, threatened by the effects of carbon pollution, are pursuing public
\nnuisance lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, which could be appealed up to
\nthe Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
\nenvironmental records of these leading contenders:<\/p>\n
\nU.S. government before the Supreme Court. But because it’s her job to represent
\nthe government’s view, the work doesn’t reveal much about her judicial
\nphilosophy or environmental priorities. And she’s never served as a federal
\nappeals judge (unlike the other nominees and all current justices), or any kind
\nof judge, so she has no judicial record to assess.<\/p>\n
\nphilosophy is her six years as dean of Harvard Law School, from 2003 to 2009,
\nwhere she helped found the Environmental Law Program<\/a>.
\nKagan lured the highly regarded environmental policy and regulation scholar Jody Freeman<\/a> from UCLA
\nto lead the program, one of the most prominent hires of her Harvard tenure.
\nKagan also launched an Environmental
\nLaw and Policy Clinic<\/a> that puts students to work on current cases.<\/p>\n
\nHarvard was not known for a primary expertise in the environmental
\njurisprudence, and that changed under Dean Kagan’s watch,” environmental law
\nprofessor Jim Rossi told
\nGreenwire<\/a> last year.<\/p>\n
\nCourt of Appeals judge is considered the insider’s choice—widely known and
\nliked in Washington legal circles, able to draw support from both Democrats and
\nRepublicans. Former Bush Justice Department official Ed Whelan called Garland
\n“the best that conservatives could reasonably hope for from a Democratic
\nPresident.”<\/p>\n
\nprogressives, but they might appreciate the role he played on the D.C. Appeals
\nCourt in repeatedly smacking down environmental shenanigans from the Bush
\nadministration EPA. In 2004, he wrote the
\ncourt’s opinion<\/a> [PDF] that found the Bush EPA had deliberately dragged its
\nfeet on smog standards, ruling in favor of Earthjustice and the Sierra Club.<\/p>\n
\nSeventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, where she’s considered a liberal
\ncounterweight to conservative heavyweight Richard A. Posner. Her signature
\nenvironmental mark was defending the scope of the Clean Water Act in Solid Waste Agency
\nof Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers<\/a>. The
\ncase questioned whether seasonal and non-navigable waterways should be
\nconsidered protected, a dilemma stemming from ambiguous language in the Act.
\nWood’s majority opinion held that regulations should apply to such waterways.
\nThe Supreme Court reversed that decision, however, limiting the reach of
\nclean-water regulation. It’s an issue the court could well examine again.<\/p>\n
\ncase might give encouragement to fans of clean water, air, and soil because it
\nrests on a broad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause<\/a> of the Constitution, the foundation of much federal environmental regulation.
\nGiven Chief Justice John Roberts’ ambiguous position<\/a> on
\nthe commerce clause, Wood’s support could be an asset.<\/p>\n