White House officials appear to leaking a couple more names as trial balloons for the Supreme Court, including former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears and federal appeals court judge Sidney Thomas of Montana. I will be discussing the current crop of possible nominees on MSNBC Hardball, withstanding more pressing news events.
Sears has been previously referred to as a possible nominee for Obama during the deliberations leading up to the nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In 1992, she became the first woman and the youngest person to ever sit on that court. She stepped down in 2009 and is practicing part-time with Schiff Hardin. She is more liberal than some of the other nominees and does have some interesting, well-respected opinions such as her opinion in the Troy Davis case. However, in her reelection, Republicans opposed her as an activist judge and would likely do so again (though they are expected to oppose virtually any nominee in this toxic environment, here and here.
For the Sears story, click here.
Another name released today is that of Ninth Circuit court judge Sidney Thomas of Montana.
The question for academics is often whether a nominee will offer intellectual leadership and depth to the Court. On that scale, Harold Koh (former Yale Dean) and Judge Diane Wood have the advantage. However, it is not clear that Obama is willing to fight for a liberal and, after effectively dropping the nomination of Dawn Johnsen for the Office of Legal Counsel (due to opposition triggered by her stands for human rights), Koh’s opposition to torture and war crimes may be too controversial for some Democrats and Administration officials.
Mespo,
Thank-you, I’m glad you enjoyed it, but I can’t take credit, it really is a rumor/meme on the web. I saw it and tweaked it, the original author is unknown/anonymous which I failed to make clear. Mea Culpa.
CEJ:
Absolutely brilliant!
There is a rumor out on the inter-tubes, you can check it out yourself but it goes something like this:
“President Obama will nominate Jesus Christ..republicans are expected to fight on the grounds that JC would radically move the court to the left…they are outraged given his widely quoted sentiments supporting poor individuals over the wealthy…former half-term Alaskan Gov $arah Palin called for an investigation of ACORN…she is highly suspicious of the coincidence, that more and more good God-fearing, small-time Americans, from hard working small-time towns, from great parts of this real America, West, South, East, North are seeing more and more everyday, that Jesus Christ is a Community Organizer!..Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) stated she would vote: NO!..’Why won’t he show us his birth certificate?’..Later her spokesperson said she had forgotten the House does not vote on Judicial nominations…Limbaugh urged his listeners to protest…’He is a socialist, and if confirmed I’m really moving to Costa Rica…..”
Glenn Greenwald’s lovely defense of Diane Wood here … she seems too ideal a candidate for this president to pick:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/19/wood/index.html
Johanna,
I hope that there are people in the white house thinking about this as clearly as you are. I understand the whole bipartisan thing, but if President Obama wants to avoid major losses in the midterms, he’s got to start getting the liberal excited soon – I think nominating Koh or Wood would be an excellent start. Sometimes its not about winning or losing, but about the fight you pick, I think in this case it would be much better politically to go down bloody but unbowed fighting for a true liberal than to eek out a victory for a moderate that will be vilified by the right anyway.
I keep thinking of Euna Lee and Laura Ling being freed from North Korean jail when Bill Clinton went to get them. Hear this out. Virtually nobody was critical of this except John Bolton. Suddenly John Bolton is ALL over cable news as if “Some say this is good soluation, other disagree” BS balance narrative that the MSM loves. So nobody who President Obama nominates, somebody will come out against him or her. And nobody no matter how minor the person’s status (John Bolton has some status, but hardly the biggest name in international affairs), he or she will be all over and will lead to more people being critical of President Obama’s nominee. So the question whether there will be a fight over the nominee, but the degree. So the White House is going to have to spend time and capital definding its defending the nominee. So either they have a nominee that conservatives (who might like and vote her) bash and the conservative base hates and get energized about (even their beloved Elena Kagan will turn into Angela Davis or Jane Fonda by August) and the liberal base isn’t that wild about. So why not get liberal base a bit energized too. Elena Kagan has some moment that taken out of context will be a lightening rod, so the White House can’t avoid a fight.
I agree that the next choice for SCOTUS should be someone who would energize the base. I was thinking that Prof. Dawn Johnsen would be a great choice! I hear she is available again.
Johanna said:
“Is supporting torute a mainstream position? I know Dick Cheney has had a mini-comeback, but he’s hardly mainstream or popular with independent and moderate voters? Wouldn’t a Koh nomination where Republicans talk about the virtues of torture, even Arab detainees by U.S. military personal, not exactly a winning PR position?”
It certainly seems like it to me. On Countdown tonight it was pointed out that if President Obama is going to have a fight in any case, he should nominate someone that will energize his liberal base. Combined with your observation I think that makes Koh (or some other highly qualified liberal) the best political choice.
Johanna,
Was that a fat joke?
Is supporting torute a mainstream position? I know Dick Cheney has had a mini-comeback, but he’s hardly mainstream or popular with independent and moderate voters? Wouldn’t a Koh nomination where Republicans talk about the virtues of torture, even Arab detainees by U.S. military personal, not exactly a winning PR position?
When you mentions election politicians who went to the SCOTUS, you mention Earl Warren, Hugo Black, Sandra Day O’Connor, etc… but you forget the BIGGEST former politician who got nominated as Chief Justice.
Take a sec and guess who I’m thinking of… TAFT! William Howard Taft was the 27th President of the United States and later the 10th Chief Justice of the United States. He is the only person to have served in both offices.
What about Bryan Stevenson? He is currently the director of the Equal Justice Initiative. He is a criminal defense attorney devoted to indigent defense and has argued cases before the Supreme Court. He is also a professor at NYU, where he has proven to be a prolific writer.
Mr. Stevenson is an incredibly bright and articulate advocate, a staunch supporter of civil liberties and a ardent opponent of the death penalty. The Court could use the prospective of a criminal defense attorney who has represented the most needy in our society.
Why is it that someone this qualified is not even considered?
Any chance you might be interested in being chosen for the SCOTUS, Professor Turley?
If offered the position would you be interested?
(NOTE: I am not President Obama)
“Koh’s opposition to torture and war crimes may be too controversial for some Democrats and Administration officials”
This may be the single most depressing and frightening comment ever made about our country.
Obama could nominate a left-wing equivalent of Scalia. Ward Churchill comes to mind.
But some more rational choices would be Elizabeth Warren or Brooksley Born. Or how about Jonathan Turley?
It seems to me that the nominee should be a person whom the President thinks is most likely to persuade Justice Kennedy to vote with the “liberal” wing of the court, as Justice Stevens was occasionally able to do. Otherwise, at least in the short run, the President is looking at a lot of adverse 5-4 decisions. And, by the “short run,” I mean until one of the “conservatives” leaves the bench, which could be years.
Montana is a good choice. That way he could fill two seats in one Sct Appointment. If I were betting odds in Vegas. It would appear to be a safe play.
Professor Turley,
I appreciate your discussion (both here and on MSNBC) on our next supreme court justice. I have developed my own personal litmus test for the court: if you are happy with the appointee then they are acceptable to me. I only wish that President Obama would use a similar measuring stick (or just appoint you ;-)).
I’m curious as to why Pamela Karlan’s name is mentioned as much as some others. She seems just as likely of a choice as Diane Wood if Obama wants to move away from a court comprised entirely of Yale/Harvard grads.
Great moments in human rights:
“Koh opposition to torture and war crimes may be too controversial for some Democrats and Administration officials.”
Sad but true that “opposition to torture and war crimes” is “controversial” these days.