Many civil libertarians and liberals were critical of President Barack Obama’s selection of Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter. Sotomayor voted with conservatives on the Second Circuit in key police abuse and free speech cases. (here and here and here and here. At the time, many of us opined that Obama would not dare appoint such a nominee to replace liberal icon John Paul Stevens. If the three candidates leaked by the White House on the short list is any indication, there is a two out of three chance that he will do precisely that.
The short list includes Judge Diane Wood, 59 of the Seventh Circuit, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, and Judge Merrick Garland, 57, of the D.C. Circuit.
At an initial matter, it is important to note that these are three highly qualified people with long and prestigious records. Moreover, I previously stated my support for Diane Wood who would be a terrific choice for the Court. The only other person who I would like to see on the Court as much as Wood is Harold Koh, former Yale Dean. For civil libertarian, Koh would be the single most significant confirmation to the Court since Louis Brandeis.
Garland is a respected jurist and a moderate. However, civil libertarians and liberals would likely oppose him. He routinely votes with the government, particularly in police cases.
Diane Kagan would also be a lightening rod. She has taken positions opposed core civil liberties, here. Kagan has supported Bush positions on “the war on terror” and is viewed by civil libertarians as part of Obama’s embracing of Bush era doctrines.
Glenn Greenwald has a column on an equally troubling prospect of nominating Cass Sunstein to the Court, here.
Given the 5-4 split on the Court, the selection of Garland, Kagan, or Sunstein could have a cascading impact on case law in the area by moving the Court to the middle and right.
Replacing Stevens with someone opposed to core civil liberties values would be the ultimate betrayal of liberals who helped elect Obama. It would also be a deep insult to the legacy of Stevens. While it is comforting not to see Sunstein on the list, it is a great disappointment not to see Koh who is currently part of the Administration. Liberals wil have to be heard clearly and strongly if they want to see Wood or Koh on the Court. The odds are currently two of three against them.
For the full story, click here.
Since we know that the Republicans will filibuster any nominee, I trust that Pres. Obama will ignore Rahm Emanuel for a change and forget about running some names past Sen. McConnell or Rep. Boehner. The nominee should be someone with a demonstrable commitment to individual rights, who is not afraid to duke it out with Justice Scalia and who doesn’t wet his or her pants whenever the word “terrorist” comes up in conversation. Prof. Turley would be a great nominee, but would be trashed as a tool of MSNBC and the rest of the socialist media. And as someone else has noted, Prof. Turley’s appointment would eliminate the most prominent voice of constitutional reason in the country. But if the president nominates a moderate or someone approved by one or two stray Republicans, I will humbly ask Buddha to design a 12-step program to help rid me of my remaining insane delusions.
Mike S,my day is now made.
Just came across this BTW:
“By Carol Rosenberg | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — A federal judge has dismissed more than 100 habeas corpus lawsuits filed by former Guantanamo captives, ruling that because the Bush and Obama administrations had transferred them elsewhere, the courts need not decide whether the Pentagon imprisoned them illegally.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/05/91651/judge-voids-scores-of-guantanamo.html
If the President doesn’t appoint a civil libertarian to SCOTUS I would of course be very upset and angry. However, this is a WAPO speculative story and WAPO has become notoriously unreliable and definitely a creature of the Beltway establishment.
“But even conservative activists say any of the three would likely win confirmation in a Senate in which Democrats control 59 seats. Yet Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said Sunday he would not rule out delaying tactics if Obama nominates “an overly ideological person.””
A clear indication that one of the sources used is a conservative trying to spin the direction of the appointment process.
Who are the sources of this story and who is presumably leaking it from the Administration? We have no idea and so we don’t know if this is a story meant to support/bolster a particular candidate, or a story of substance. I know that the performance of the Administration has been such that it leads us all to distrust. At the same time I think we need to keep in mind that most MSM outlets are merely propaganda. The WAPO, NYT and mainstream media are little more than Pravda’s manipulating us with the “purported inside stuff,” only to foment division and distrust.
This is an old American game. The South has managed throughout the years to maintain oligarchic power in its States by fostering a climate of division and distrust among us common folk. At this point the same game is being played with only slightly different parameters. The aim is the maintenance of our version of the “Noble Classes” and maintain an oligarchy with democratic pretenses.
However, under this system there are certain options that do give the underclasses a measure of power. Isn’t that why most of us so firmly support the constitution and the civil liberties it grants us?
This is not a rant meant to foster the foolish notion of bi-partisanship. That is un-historical nonsense fostered by pseudo-pundits like David Broder and the Beltway establishment.
I merely am trying to point out that we need to look beyond the headlines and the false claims and see that behind this Oz-Like curtain are those that are trying to manipulate us. We must find out our own truths and share them with each other, as long as we can keep the “Net” relatively open. Forget the speculation and get angry about what we know is reality.
I think many people in Washington ARE PC–Politically Corrupt!
Ay My children would disagree. I think young people in their twenties are extremely politically correct and I get confronted constantly about not being p.c. enough.
BIL,altough these comments were from a different subject but I think they fit here:
“eniobob
1, January 15, 2010 at 7:57 am
When ever I saw him on TV giving his views,he seemed to be a very credible voice.I guess he represents what filmakers that brought us “Dracula and the Werewolf”were trying to tell us about certain human behavior.Wether they realised it or not at the time.
3 Buddha Is Laughing
1, January 15, 2010 at 8:09 am
eniobob,
Lest we forget the artistic debt owed to Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”.
Swartzmore mom,
I have to say that you are probably one of the most PC people that I have met, to date.
Buddha on the other hand well too much cough syrup, well you get the picture………
I am accused by my children for not being politically correct enough but in comparison to you folks I pass the p.c. test with flying colors.
Pardon, “isn’t in”
Multitasking again!
AY,
I’m pretty sure “PC” in my vocabulary except as shorthand for “Personal Computer”.
Buddha, Buddha, Buddha,
Be careful in the use of words. They have power to inflame and to incite riots. You are not being politically correct and/or racially sensitive. You must never use the name “Obama and serving his master” in the same paragraph.
I am aware that the Grand Wizard or Imperial Wizard lives in Indiana, so I am sure with a class or two on being sensitive you can heal yourself.
Obama,
Thanks for showing what a sellout graft whore are with your short(sighted) list, Mr. President and Aider and Abettor of Treason and Fascist Tool.
You’re in practice about as liberal as Nixon. Which makes you a liar far worse than Bush. He was at least honest about being a greedy self-serving stupid prick.
You said you’d “rather be a ‘good’ President than a two-term President”. Well congratulations! One out of two ain’t bad.
Jackass.
DISCLAIMER: This is my personal low opinion of you. I speak for myself. If you got a problem with that? Repeal the 1st Amendment or suck it, you shiftless weasel. And some bad news for you, buttercup – repealing the 1st would only make me get worse. I represent an idea – that all men are created equal and deserve equal treatment under the law. You can’t silence an idea. Signed – your very disgruntled (and did I mention “angry” and “betrayed”?) former supporter.
Go on now. Go on and reward your “masters”. Because you, supposedly the leader of the free world, once again have shown you are a willing slave to money and “business as usual”. Way to go, sport!
I think Professor Turley should be nominated.
Hell as much as he has not overturned any of Bush’s stuff he should just appoint Karl Rove or Dick Cheney. You see you don’t even have to be an attorney to be on the Federal Court….. Kinda of scary is it not?
Actually, Prof. Turley would be great. If anyone could give Scalia a run for his money, it’d be him.
Please no Sunstein. Would love to see Koh on the bench, but not going to happen. Of course republicans will oppose whoever Obama chooses, so why not go with someone “liberal” ?
Every compass point on the new Obama has an old “W” on it.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/01/w-on-every-compass-point.html
Mr President – Nominate Professor Turley to the Supreme Court
Another opportunity to push Turley4SCOTUS.
This deserves a segment on Countdown.
10-1 on Sunstein
“Replacing Stevens with someone opposed to core civil liberties values would be the ultimate betrayal of liberals who helped elect Obama.” (JT)
Ah but, Professor, I, as a liberal, was given to understand, after Obama took office, that I had misunderstood everything he said during the election. He made me no promises at all … what I thought I heard him say was all my imagination … he never said it … he never even “thunk” it and David Axelrod has no idea how I conjured up such ridiculous notions. So replacing Stevens with someone opposed to core liberties values is probably exactly what he’ll do.