If one were to analogize the search for Justice Stevens' replacement to the recently concluded health care debate, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood would be the public option.  Just as the truly left-wing health care approach (a single-payer system) was eliminated from consideration before the process even began, so, too, have the truly left-wing candidates to replace Justice Stevens (Pam Karlan, Harold Koh) been ruled out as "not viable."  As a result, the moderate-progressive compromises (i.e., the public option for health care and Diane Wood for Stevens' replacement) are falsely depicted as some sort of liberal extremism, merely because they're the least conservative options allowed to be considered.  Contrary to how she's now being cast, Judge Wood is a very cautious and law-based jurist who resides far from the furthest left end of the mainstream judicial spectrum.  In fact, one of her most distinctive attributes is the uniform respect and collegial relationships she has with her conservative colleagues on one of the nation's more right-wing courts.

Reading Glenn's post on Wood today, it is hard not to come away from it wondering why a Democratic president would see Kagan as a better nominee than Wood - if in fact, she is at the top of Obama's list.

Whatever else is true, progressives should demand a replacement for Justice Stevens whose values, approach to the Constitution, and judicial philosophy they can know, as well as someone who has embodied the function the Supreme Court is intended to serve in our political system:  namely, one which checks and limits the other branches and safeguards core Constitutional liberties, especially when the political climate makes it most likely that those rights will be assaulted.

On Wednesday, the Huffington Post learned, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who is leading outreach efforts around the upcoming court vacancy, reached out to progressive allies to dismiss a critical article written about Kagan. The article, authored by Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald, attacked the former Harvard Law School dean for her expansive interpretation of executive powers. Dunn's response, however, focused on a much narrower Greenwald critique -- that Kagan didn't have sufficient experience and lacked an extensive written record, having never been a sitting judge.