Bye bye to the bow tie guy

The hits keep on coming for liberals. With the passing of the liberal lion Sen. Ted Kennedy last year and the Democratic Congress’ low approval rating, they have much to worry about in the near future, especially considering the gloomy forecast in the upcoming midterm elections.

However, liberals might have an opportunity to cause a permanent ideological shift to the left in choosing a replacement for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his plans to retire last week.

Justice Stevens will be turning 90 next week, making him the oldest member of the court and the fourth-longest serving justice in history. Yet he decided to retire during President Obama’s term in office.

Stevens has exemplified the shifting politics in American society. Originally moderately conservative (and nominated by Republican President Gerald Ford), Stevens has shifted to the left on major issues, such as free speech, the Fourth Amendment, abortion rights and gay rights.

As such, Obama should endorse a candidate to fill his ideological void, keeping the balance of the Court.

Obama should choose a liberal candidate quickly, as he or she might become impossible to confirm after the midterm elections, given the likelihood that Republicans will pick up seats in the Senate and gain popular support for opposition to Obama’s nominees.

Currently, speculation surrounds a handful of people passed over when Obama chose then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter, and a few others.

Those being considered include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland, 7th District Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.

In picking a replacement, Obama should look at what the Supreme Court currently lacks. Stevens is currently the only Protestant justice, with the rest of the court being composed of Catholics and Jews.

If Obama doesn’t choose a Protestant, the court will lack representation from one of the nation’s major religious sects.

As a highly unpopular group, atheists have never been represented on the Court. If Obama were to choose one, he would affirm freedom of religion in an unprecedented manner.

Other than religious background, Obama might want to consider sexual orientation. Obama has appointed some three dozen openly gay or lesbian officials below the cabinet level­ —  a trend worth continuing.

Acclaimed legal scholars such as Kathleen Sullivan, a former dean of Stanford Law School, and current Stanford law professor Pam Karlan, would both be the first openly gay members of the Supreme Court if nominated and confirmed.

Other than legal scholars and judges, Obama might want to choose a fellow politician for the court. Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein has suggested the Senate would likely be kinder to its own. Specifically, Klein names Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who served as a senator from 2001 to 2009, as his choice.

Clinton is one of the most polarizing names in politics today. However, regardless of whom Obama chooses, he’ll likely have to face the bucking and foot-dragging of Republicans, who are not likely to go along willingly with many of the aforementioned nominees.

What about Bill Clinton? The Senate easily approved former President Howard Taft when he was nominated by President Warren Harding, and Clinton could possibly echo that confirmation.

He might be the best of all worlds: a committed Democrat (if not a liberal), a Protestant politician who’s known as a staunch supporter of gay rights and a probable smooth confirmation.

We’ll soon see.