Or so says Mark Halperin about the vacancy for the US Supreme Court. He also asks some good (and some silly) questions.

Politico adds that Republicans are already targeting three likely candidates:

A conservative politico likely to work on the coming judicial nomination battle sends over a memo circulating on the right, which targets three likely Obama nominees: Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Diane Wood, and Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

The early lines seem to be attacks on Kagan’s lack of bench experience, Sotomayor’s “temperament,” and Wood’s rulings on hot-button issues, including an application of a RICO statute in a case against hard-line anti-abortion activist Randall Terry.

Presidents come and go (within four, maximum eight years), but Supreme Court justices often stay for decades. Add to this that SCOTUS has more power and influence than a president has on controversial issues and you will quickly understand why this issue is so incredibly important (and therefore dominating Memeorandum today).

SCOTUS sets the course the US follows for longer than four (or eight) years. Once a precedent is established, it is incredibly difficult to have it overruled. George W. Bush appointed some truly conservative judges. Obama will probably do the opposite. His nominee to replace Justice Souter will be liberal, perhaps even extremely liberal. This judge will vote for liberal laws, even when they are in breach with the literal text of the Constitution because she (Souter’s successor will probably be a woman) believes the Constitution is ‘a living document’ which requires ‘new interpretations according to changing times.’

Conservatives discovered decades ago that Supreme Court justices are more important than presidents. They should scrutinize Obama’s nominee and filibuster any attempt to appoint an ideologue.

Michelle Malkin has more information about the three women mentioned by Politico. Key information:

-Dean Kagan – It is also unclear that a Justice Kagan would be an adequately independent check on executive excesses. She has argued in favor of greatly enhanced presidential control over the bureaucracy, which is concerning in light of President Obama’s unprecedented centralization of power in the White House…

Sonia Sotomayor – Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

Diane Wood – Judge Wood’s judicial views have on occasion been far outside mainstream legal thought and appear driven by her personal policy views. In NOW v. Scheidler, she wrote an opinion applying RICO – a statute designed for mob prosecutions – to prevent pro-life activists from engaging in protests. The Supreme Court reversed with Justices Ginsburg’s and Breyer’s concurrence. NOW v. Scheidler, 537 U.S. 393, 402 (2003).

Shorter: to say that there is reason to be worried about each of these women is a tremendous understatement. Especially the last two are not judges but activists.