Who will the newest SUPREME COURT Justice? What is the Strategy?

[AtLast]

Lots of names and opinions floating around out there for who Obama will pick as his second SC justice appointment. Rumors abound, many of which include Hillary Clinton and even Al Gore! Obviously, media fodder!

There is discussion on a possibility of not appointing a judge at all, but a politician. The buzz about Obama's strategy in his appointment is interesting.

Some serious names floating around include Diane Wood and Merrick Garland, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Who do you think might be a good appointee, and why? I always find it helpful to get the wide array of ideas about these kinds of things because we come from all over the US, and the world!

Justice Steven's retirement from the court really is serious in terms of how the court could swing in decisions. And the GOP is already starting the conservative posturing about confirmation. I really think they would love to stop any appointment from going through until after the mid[-term elections...

[UofMfan]

I would love to have a progressive liberal like this guy:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...ew-goodwin-liu

But I am afraid Obama is going to want to play nice an nominate someone more middle of the road.

Now if only Scalia or Alito would retire...We can only hope.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

I would love to have a progressive liberal like this guy:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...ew-goodwin-liu

But I am afraid Obama is going to want to play nice an nominate someone more middle of the road.

Now if only Scalia or Alito would retire...We can only hope.

Yes! Goodwin Liu would be my first choice. Makes me think about being a fly on the wall in rooms that the justices confer within! Think about Alito, Scalia and Roberts with Liu!!! But, I agree with you that Obama will stick to the center.... unfortunately. One can only hope.....

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Yes! Goodwin Liu would be my first choice. Makes me think about being a fly on the wall in rooms that the justices confer within! Think about Alito, Scalia and Roberts with Liu!!! But, I agree with you that Obama will stick to the center.... unfortunately. One can only hope.....

It is unfortunate because George W. Bush certainly did not stick to the center. Now we have some of the most conservative judges on the bench thanks to him.

Supreme Court nominations are not a time to play nice and try to be bi-partisan, they have lifetime effects.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

It is unfortunate because George W. Bush certainly did not stick to the center. Now we have some of the most conservative judges on the bench thanks to him.

Supreme Court nominations are not a time to play nice and try to be bi-partisan, they have lifetime effects.

If there was a time to do some shakin' up... it is NOW!! The possible reconfiguration in Congress after the mid-term elections, plus, a real possibility that Obama might not get re-elected (which I hate saying, but his supporters need to get back out there, now), makes me really want a left to center/progressive justice in there. Sotomeyer really had a moderate record, but I was very happy with her appointment. Not that this always means decisions always match the politics of who appoints them. Thinking about Sandra Day O'Conner (Reagan appointment) and Earl Warren way back. He was a republican appointed by Eisenhower. Although, the GOP was a very different party then.

[MsDemeanor]

I think that, just as with his last nominee, Obama will cave to the Republicans and move the court further to the right. It frustrates me to no end that they can get away with doing something as blatantly manipulative and unprecedented as threaten a filibuster when they don't even know who the candidate will be. Someone needs to stop these people; sadly this administration and this Senate won't.

Between the pending further shift to the right of the court and the treasonous language being spoken by conservatives and their representatives (Oklahoma being the latest example), I fear for our future. I've long said that if there is a revolution in this country, it won't be by the liberals to move us forward, but rather by the conservatives to move us backward. The revolution may have begun.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

I think that, just as with his last nominee, Obama will cave to the Republicans and move the court further to the right. It frustrates me to no end that they can get away with doing something as blatantly manipulative and unprecedented as threaten a filibuster when they don't even know who the candidate will be. Someone needs to stop these people; sadly this administration and this Senate won't.

Between the pending further shift to the right of the court and the treasonous language being spoken by conservatives and their representatives (Oklahoma being the latest example), I fear for our future. I've long said that if there is a revolution in this country, it won't be by the liberals to move us forward, but rather by the conservatives to move us backward. The revolution may have begun.

As much as it deeply bothers me (I am so turned-off to Obama's administration thus far and really did have some hope with his election) , I think you are on point with these feelings. Where is the outrage? Why are we so complacent? Why are we sitting back and taking this?

I know that during bad economic times, the more liberal faction's social response to such insanity becomes blunted because so many are being paralyzed economically. Historically, the middle-class has been the base of social movements because of actually having more leisure time (now a foreign concept and so rooted in the post WWII era) and some security with income. that isn't true at present as so many are really one dead refrigerator away from bankruptcy literally. Also, what constitutes the middle-class isn't what it used to be. The working poor are more stressed today and I believe, even further marginalized.

I see less and less people coming into volunteer time for community and more left-wing political projects at the very time it is needed the most. Hell, the mistrust of government does not lie solely to the right. Moderates are becoming more aligned with things like vote all incumbents out.

I find what the GOP is doing outrageous as well as inhumane! Yet, I keep searching for the left and progressive base to rise up and do not see it happening. The economic struggles we are facing have infiltrated far more people within this population and I see a kind of group depression and numbing hanging over us like an epidemic. Many people just can't conger up the energy anymore to organize and fight.

Unfortunately, I think Obama will fold once again in what I am beginning to simply see as the typical political concern over re-election. His appointee will be the safest politically.

Frankly, I would like to see the presidential term to be a single 6 years. Worry about and strategy for re-election begins the day after a president has taken office. Actually, I don't see much hope for our political processes unless we have public funding (only) for elections.

This appointee on the Supreme Court is so damn critical, so I want to believe that Obama will take the Congressional battle on with some backbone, but, I doubt it. This is where I feel that Obama ran far too early without the political savvy needed to get things done. I never bought it was positive that he wasn't tainted by Washington... yet. That is what is happening right now and I can't tell the difference between him and a Republican. I feel duped and I want to stand behind him. I really do, but I am having a very difficult time doing so.

I think Sarah Palin could be elected president (or VP) as I look at what is going on....

Sorry for any errors… I’m in a mood and must water some plants!! No, not those kind of plants!

[Hack]

I'd strike Granholm from the list. She'd never make it through the confirmation hearing.

[UofMfan]

Although, she is not my top choice for the bench, this was to be expected.

Elena Kagan 'Gay' Whisper Campaign Enrages Rights Groups
Sam Stein, The Huffington Post


Leading gay rights group are accusing Republicans of trying to rile up their conservative base by launching a whisper campaign against potential Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan -- suggesting the current Solicitor General is a closeted lesbian even though she's not.

In its first entree into the upcoming Supreme Court nomination process, the group Human Rights Campaign blasted the increasingly public discussion of Kagan's sexuality, calling it a play "straight out the right-wing playbook."

"Even though the majority of Americans couldn't care less about a nominee's sexual orientation, the far right will continue to be shameless with their whisper campaigns to drum up their base and raise money off of prejudice," Michael Cole, a spokesperson for the group emailed, in a statement to the Huffington Post

In a separate interview, Jean-Marie Navetta, spokeswoman from PFLAG -- Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays -- accused people of trying to manufacture scandal out of thin air.

"People love taking part in rumors like this, whether they're gay or not, because it implies that there's some sort of scandal going on there. And the bottom line is, it doesn't matter and it shouldn't matter," she said. "But we hear it all the time... it's a gossip point for people. And I think it could certainly be used, or be perceived to be used by some as a way to discredit [Kagan], even though we all know that it does not matter and it should not matter."

The comments come a day after CBS published a blog by Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, in which he asserted that choosing Kagan would help Obama "please" much of his base, because she would be the "first openly gay justice." The White House reacted strongly to the assertion, relaying that Kagan is, in fact, straight. It was the first public pushback by the administration in defense of any potential Supreme Court nominee.

[MsDemeanor]

Conservatives know no shame.

[Soon]

Why did the White House issue a statement that she is straight?

Why not just avoid answering such suppositions--by responding, doesn't that imply that people have a right to know the sexual orientation of the nominee and that it would affect their nomination?

By issuing no statement, wouldn't that be sending a message that sexual orientation is not a consideration when deciding the best SCJ, that people do not have the right to know of someone's orientation--that, either way, someone's sexuality is not a consideration?

Why issue the denial?

If Kagan wanted to address it, that's a different story.

[MsDemeanor]

I would agree with you if we were dealing with reasonable people to whom a logical argument could be given which they would understand and acknowledge. We're not dealing with reasonable people, we're dealing with manipulators who have no shame when it comes to telling lies and ignorant or homophobic followers who buy the lies.

[Soon]

The White House, Elena Kagan, and Me

Ben DomenechEditor of The New Ledger
Posted: April 16, 2010 12:44 PM


It's an odd thing to get attacked by the White House for a blog post, and odder still when the attack is for something mentioned in passing, and intended to highlight a political positive about a potential Supreme Court nominee.

My recent blog post at The New Ledger, crossposted at CBS News, mentioned that I thought the appointment of Elena Kagan, along with potential nominees Pam Karlan and Kathleen Sullivan, would mark the first instance of an openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court. I included it as a political positive, describing it as a "Plus" that "would please much of Obama's base." The issue is already out there: Karlan and Sullivan are both openly gay, and one need not look too far for arguments being made on left-wing blogs that it would be an affirmative good to appoint a lesbian.

As Sam Stein writes: "The White House reacted strongly to the assertion, relaying that Kagan is, in fact, straight. It was the first public pushback by the administration in defense of any potential Supreme Court nominee."

I erroneously believed that Ms. Kagan was openly gay not because of, as Stein describes it, a "whisper campaign" on the part of conservatives, but because it had been mentioned casually on multiple occasions by friends and colleagues -- including students at Harvard, Hill staffers, and in the sphere of legal academia -- who know Kagan personally. And as the reaction from Julian Sanchez and Matt Yglesias shows, I was not alone in that apparently inaccurate belief.

Look, it's 2010 -- no one should care if a nominee to any position is gay. The fact that conservative Senators John Cornyn and Jeff Sessions have recently expressed openness to confirming an openly gay nominee to the Court is a good thing. Senators should look at things that actually matter -- evaluating a nominee's decisions, approach to the law, their judgment and ability -- to see whether there are actually good and relevant reasons to oppose the nomination. That's all.

But that's about getting the job. As a political matter, there are ramifications for nominations to the Supreme Court, and the core elements of a nominee's biography, like his or her family life, are inescapable when the nation focuses on such a high-profile life-tenured appointment. Making history is a noteworthy thing: many in the Latino community were pleased when Sonia Sotomayor (who I supported) was nominated, and many in the LGBT community would welcome the opportunity to confirm an openly gay justice. Glenn Greenwald and others agree with me on this point, and I can't think why anyone would disagree.

That's why I listed it as a positive: after so much frustration with the White House from the gay community on lack of action on other policy fronts, an openly gay nominee might serve to mend that strained relationship.

As I told Howard Kurtz, and I say again here, I offer my sincere apologies to Ms. Kagan if she is offended at all by my repetition of a Harvard rumor in a speculative blog post. It still seems odd to me that the White House would single out this statement for attack, adamantly slamming closed a door that nobody was trying to open, as opposed to issuing a mild correction. As Yglesias notes, "I'd like to think we're past the point where saying someone's a lesbian counts as a dastardly 'accusation,'" and it certainly was not intended as such.

But on the other hand, if I were Ms. Kagan, I'd feel pretty good about the fact that the White House specifically responded to this, and did so in such an aggressive and forceful manner -- after all, it seems like quite a clue as to who the pick will be, doesn't it?

[UofMfan]

I was just reading that on HufffPost, thanks for posting it HSIN!

Makes you wonder.

[AtLast]

I so want Obama to show some backbone and nominate Liu for the Supreme Court! Sure, I want him on the
9th Appellate Court, but this is one of the brightest analytical legal minds in this country and should be a Supreme Court Justice! I'm not simply saying this because he would be left of center, I find his ideas about the Constitution as an evolving document that must reflect what is in the present as very much in keeping with what the framers had in mind... a living, breathing, thinking framework that can stand the test of time! Why else would it have been conceived with amendment processes and within a very short time, adorned with the Bill of Rights! Not a means to hold a nation in perpetual infancy as strict constitutionalists believe.

I believe Liu is the stuff of Justice Brandeis as has been discussed by many of the analysts commenting on the new appointment before Obama. I have always loved his comment about sunlight (transparency) being the best disenfectant. Was it not transparency that Obama spoke of so much while running, and dealing with the financial crisis? Then threw out a very limited set of standards for lobbyists that really does nothing to stop DC insiders from being consultants to lobbyists! Brandeis called out corporate welfare as we know it today back in the 1930's!

Hell, yes, he would face fire in the confirmation process, but any and all of Obama's appointees would. Liu would more than handle the confirmation hearings, he'd whoop those puppies to the ground with his brillance.

Obama needs to appoint an unabashed liberal... oh, that's right, he is not one, himself.

Guess we have to just wait and see.... Thus far, the short-list is not doing much for me....


-----------------------
WASHINGTON—Senate Republicans fiercely criticized President Barack Obama's choice for a seat on a San Francisco-based federal appellate court Friday, in an intensifying test of his ability to install an unabashed liberal.

Nominee Goodwin Liu (Loo) tried to deflect the criticism by assuring lawmakers that his personal views would "never have a role" in his opinions if confirmed to a seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.



Republicans blast Obama's appellate court choice

Republicans threw back at Liu his sharp criticism of two Supreme Court justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, when they were nominees. GOP senators told Liu he had no judicial experience, and said they worried he would give the government sweeping powers over Americans' lives.

At a divisive confirmation hearing, Democrats countered that Republicans were applying a double-standard, since they have voted for some GOP nominees who were conservative activists who assured senators they would not bring their personal views to the bench.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the committee, said Republican opposition to Liu was "instantaneous and has continued. They are being unfair."

Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. said they were incensed at Liu's remarks in opposition to Alito's nomination.

Liu, a University of California, Berkeley, law professor, said Alito's vision was an America "where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy ... where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance ... where the FBI may install a camera where you sleep ... where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man, absent ... analysis showing discrimination."

Kyl called those comments "vicious and emotionally and racially charged."

Liu said he used "unnecessarily colorful language" and added, "I have the highest regard for Justice Alito's career." He said those remarks followed a 14-page analysis of Alito's rulings. He said Roberts "has an extraordinarily distinguished record."

Leahy fumed that Kyl's comments were "outrageous."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, noting that Liu omitted material from a committee questionnaire, asked, "Can you assure us this was not an act of contempt?"

Liu said it was not, and noted he previously apologized for inadvertently omitting information.

Both parties in the past have tried -- and sometimes did -- block court nominees of the other party. Obama is slowly remaking federal appeals and lower district courts, following eight years of conservative judges picked by former President George W. Bush.

He now will have a second Supreme Court pick to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Depending on Obama's pick, the Liu nomination could serve as a template for a partisan fight likely to follow over the high court nominee.

At the hearing, the barrage of Republican attacks prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. to ask Liu, 39, how he was holding up.

Liu said he was fine. Feinstein said, "You've got amazing cool."

Sessions, contrasting Liu to Roberts and Alito -- both appellate judges before their elevation -- asked, "Have you argued any case before the Supreme Court or the court of appeals?"

Liu said he never argued before the Supreme Court and argued once before a federal appeals court.

The professor and associate dean at the University of California, Berkeley, has written extensively about his liberal views on welfare and applying the Constitution to changing needs of society.

Liu said he knows that appellate judges cannot make "new determinations as if they were writing on a blank slate," and added his views usually were directed at policymakers, not judges.

He told Sessions, "I would have no difficulty or objection of any sort to enforcing the law as written in enforcing the death penalty."

Liu is nominated for the 9th Circuit, which hears appeals from lower courts in California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii and Montana.

AP friday, April 16

[Martina]

What's this weird thing about Kagan being outed by CBS or Huffpo and then taking it back when the Obama administration yelled? i can't follow it. Too early, i guess.

She's another climber instead of a hard-core academic or experienced judge, but that's that way it works, i guess. She seems impressive.

[UofMfan]

I am disappointed as I believe that Elena Kagan will move the Court to the right and that is the last thing we need.

I don't think Kagan can fill Judge Steven's shoes, she is too conservative to do so.

[Toughy]

I have no idea if she is conservative, moderate or progressive/liberal. She has no record as a judge to make a decision about her ideology.

I do think she is certainly qualified based on her history as a lawyer, a constitutional law professor and as solicitor general.

I hope during her confirmation hearing, she will talk about her views instead of doing what Alito and Roberts did.......which was not talk.

[Martina]

i don't think an old buddy of Obama's from when they taught at Chicago together is likely to be that conservative. But there is no history to judge her by. All we really know is that she is very bright and very ambitious. She has reached the peak of her career at 50. Wonder how she will manage to stop striving?

[Martina]

This is kinda cute -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/franci..._b_570540.html