During yesterday’s White House press briefing, Jen Psaki was being hit with questions about the President’s selection process for choosing a nominee to replace Associate Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. That’s to be expected of course, and no President would let the cat out of the bag so early in the process before they’ve even interviewed anyone. But one comment from Psaki in response to a question about U.S. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs (a favorite of Jim Clyburn and someone who may draw the support of at least a few Republicans) contained a phrase that may reveal a bit more of Biden’s thinking. Here’s what she said:

“The president is going to select a woman, a Black woman, who is qualified, who is prepared, who has impeccable experience to serve on the court. He’s going to do that based on her credentials, of course having a discussion with her and not through gaming out the system.”

What did she mean by “gaming out the system” in this context? That seems fairly clear. There’s not much point in nominating someone who you believe is doomed to fail during the confirmation process. In more normal times, the President and his staff would definitely be engaged in “gaming out the system” by learning which potential nominees would attract the highest possible number of votes. And that’s what some Democrats are urging right now.

There are a few names on the list that likely won’t cause very much controversy in terms of their actual qualifications. Ketanji Brown Jackson, Leondra Kruger, and Wilhelmina Wright are all sitting judges who have been through the confirmation process before and have sufficiently liberal track records to satisfy most Senate Democrats. Whether any of them would attract as many GOP votes (if any) as J. Michelle Childs is unknown, but they won’t need any GOP votes to place them anyway.

But what if there are some of the more radical progressives in the caucus who don’t find those choices to be sufficiently liberal? Recent reports suggest that there are at least some Democrats in Schumer’s caucus who aren’t too sure about Childs, feeling that she might be “too moderate” on some issues that may come before the court.

What if those same Democrats want to push for someone far further to the left and without the requisite experience? Let’s say someone like Melissa Murray. She’s not even a judge and has never been one. She’s a law professor from New York University and an “expert in reproductive rights justice.” In other words, she lacks any applicable experience in serving on the bench but that’s okay because she’s a rabid pro-abortion activist. And she is somehow allegedly on Biden’s shortlist.

That doesn’t sound like someone with “impeccable experience to serve on the court” to me, but there’s a reason that she’s seen as being in the running. Psaki seems to be subtly giving a nod to the progressives, indicating that Biden won’t be basing his choice on the need to find a few Republicans to go along with the plan. If they’re looking for a choice that will be defined by “owning the cons,” then Melissa Murry would probably be right up their ally. But they would risk angering Jim Clyburn in the process. Of course, since Clyburn doesn’t get a vote in the matter it might not change the ultimate outcome, but it would probably fire up the civil war among the House Democrats yet again.

Whoever Joe Biden winds up selecting will almost certainly end up being seated. But much like the previous battles over the stalled spending bills, Biden may wind up leaving even more Democratic wreckage in his wake. And that’s yet another headache his party probably doesn’t need heading into the midterms.