Late today, President Obama said he intended to pick a replacement for Justice David Souter who has a "sharp and independent" mind and can balance "empathy" with honoring "our constitutional traditions."
Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.
I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.
As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum. And it is my hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court Justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October when the Court's new term begins.
Appointed by George H.W. Bush, Souter became a reliable liberal vote on the court and posited himself as an advocate of a constitution that breathes and whose principles are to be informed by modern facts and evidence. He is known by legal scholars as a moderate, but he votes often with the liberal wing. Conservatives hate him.
By all accounts, Mr. Souter was not terribly pleased with the prospect of spending the remainder of his active life on the court. He will return to quiet New Hampshire.
Let's face facts: there are many qualified center-left jurists who are women. Obama will be under enormous pressure to name a woman to replace Mr. Souter, especially given the illness of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Justice John Paul Stevens is 89.
Somewhat opaquely, Obama, a constitutional law lecturer, has said that the single most important qualification his appointments must possess is empathy for those who are less fortunate. In September, Obama told an audience that he is "committed to appointing judges who understand how law operates in our daily lives, judges who will uphold the values at the core of our Constitution."
So would Obama appoint an academic? A long-time bench-sitter? Someone with a mixture of experience?
The new associate justice will probably be called upon to decide the constitutionality of Bagram airbase detentions, the scope of the government's authority to define a national security fact, perhaps the status of gay marriage -- and much more.
His first judicial appointment may tell us about his newest decision: Obama nominated Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice David Hamilton to the 7th circuit; the White House portrayed Hamilton as a jurist respected by Republicans and Democrats alike, although Republicans in Washington were skeptical.
If Obama appoints a thoroughgoing liberal, Republicans will give him the fight of his life -- though he might, by the time of the vote, have 60 Democrats to avoid a filibuster. A more moderate pick would disappoint his liberal base. In reality, Obama can appoint anyone he wants. Democrats are already pushing back at the notion of a GOP filibuster, pointing to comments made by prominent Republicans who warned Democrats against blocking President Bush's nominees. A bigger challenge for Republicans: with Arlen Specter moving to the Democratic side of the aisle, his veteran nominee-vetting staff will probably not be inclined to help minority Republicans.
Among those who might make the list of replacements: incoming solicitor general Elena Kagan, formerly the dean of the Harvard Law School, Cass Sunstein, a brilliant constitutional law prof who now works at Obama's Office of Management and Budget, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appellate judge Diane Wood, and Leah Ward Sears, the chief justice of Georgia's Supreme Court. A dark horse might be Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York. Less known but equally potent candidates would be Stanford's Pam Karlan, an intellectually brilliant liberal, and Johnnie Rawlinson, an appeals court judge and the first African American woman appointed to that circuit. Of all these candidates, Wood and Karlan are probably the brightest lights, and Wood would be most palatable to conservatives. Cato's Ilya Shapiro, a former Wood student, said that she'd offer a "seriousness of purpose and no ideological ax to grind, this making her the best nominee for supporters of constitutionalism.
If Obama has a short list, it is probably much longer than mine, and includes many judges I haven't considered.
Watch for Vice President Joe Biden, a former chair of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, to play a significant role in this process. Biden's chief of staff, Ron Klain, has more experience vetting potential nominees than just about anyone else in Washington, and the process of compiling an initial list of nominees has been given to his office.
So what's the process going to be like? Will it be partially public -- the White House having decided to selectively leak the names of certain more conservative jurists that Obama meets? Will he meet with a range of folks? Will he meet with a pro-life judge? Or -- does he segregate politics from the process entirely?
First, Obama compiles his list. Then, he tries to keep the list a secret. Does he begin to compile vetting teams before Souter formally steps down? Unclear -- although the VP's office already has some staff capacity.
The public will be treated to a three-act play; Act 1 -- who SHOULD Obama pick? Act 2 -- who DOES Obama pick? Act 3 -- what does the GOP do? Spoiler alert! Don't call this is a battle; Obama's going to get his nominee confirmed. The question is whether he does so while enhancing his status and his party.
Dawn Johnsen.
This will become a circus. Of course, if it were someone like Thomas or Scalia stepping down from the court, or even Kennedy for that matter, it would be utterly chaotic.
"Somewhat opaquely, Obama, a constitutional law lecturer, has said that the single most important qualification his appointments must possess is empathy for those who are less fortunate."
Why is that an important qualification for someone with the job of deciding the Constitutionality of law? Sometimes the "less fortunate" are WRONG. Sometimes Mr. Big is RIGHT. Why not appoint judges who don't care a whit about the economic situation of the participants in a case, but who are only concerned with what is right or wrong legally?
Citizen Carrier,
You ask why empathy for less fortunate people is a valid criterion. One simple reason is that many cases hang on decisions judges make about people, their intentions, their motives, their interests, and the impact of a decision on them. This is true for all approaches to legal reasoning, conservative or liberal included. You can find proof of this by reading opinions written by Renquist, Scalia, Marshall, Stevens, etc. Empathy is simply a component of understanding another human being; empathy for the less fortunate is simply a prerequisite for a flawed bias in favor of the more powerful. Empathy is insufficient in itself but necessary for wisdom. The law, including our Constitution, often explicitly calls for this (how else would you interpret "cruel" or "free" when rendering decisions about punishment and speech, for example).
Elite politicians and judges generally have a very well-developed understanding of what it's like to be wealthy, powerful, fortunate. It's good that they understand the implications of messing with a rich man's rights or fortune. It's good that they are capable of understanding what's reasonable--or not--to expect from a corporation acting in good faith. Why would it not be important to have the same competence in understanding a bit about being poor, powerless, unfortunate?
Understanding could certainly be used as a basis for taking sides; what you miss, however, is that understanding is also often necessary in order to NOT take sides unfairly while applying the law as intended and written.
"Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice David Hamilton"
David Hamilton was NOT the Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice--he was the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
I'll put the money I have left after paying my taxes, on Hillary Clinton.
SURELY, they made a deal last year that the first opening was to be hers!
Lord, have mercy.
I really can't tell, is this a article reporting news, or an opinion piece? It's hard to tell nowadays; no more real hard reporting.
In any event, what a poorly written piece. Anyone who would think that Sunstein or Clinton would be reasonable choices for the highest bench in the nation is a front line lefty activist, and not to be trusted. Imagine Hillary being asked to weigh in on case involving, oh say, seach and seizure or privacy. What a sad and horrible joke to those whose personal FBI files were sitting in her bedroom closet. The lady is an old school fascist.
Souter told Bush 1 how he would vote and then did the opposite. Like a seasononed politician, he lied flat out with a straight face.
He will be remembered in my book as one of the "jurists" who seem to have no problem using decisions from FOREIGN courts as precendent for establishing law here in the USA.
He's leaving soon? Outstanding news.
Hilary the fascist with files in her closet. Wow, man, that's some old-school crazy right there.
Not to mention the whole Rose Law Firm fiasco... "I was baking cookies for my daughter... I am sorry, I don't recall... I have no recollection... I don't recall, I have no memory of those events, I don't recall, I have no recollection..."
I can imagine he being a justice.
Attorney: The first amendment clearly states that people have the freedom to speak...
Justice Clinton: I am sorry, I have no recollection of those words.
thanks for agreeing! she is definitely old school crazy
Do you even know what "fascist" means?
Courts here in the good old USA have been using "FOREIGN" courts as "precendent" [SIC] for 200 years. Surely, if it was god enough for our Founders, its good enough for us today. Or isn't that how the conservative argument goes?
Care to give us some examples of this?
Evans v. Eaton. 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 454 (1818)
Potts v. Creager, 155 U.S. 597 (1895)
Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1872)
Evans v. Eaton. 16 U.S.
"JUDGMENT. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, and was urged by counsel. On consideration whereof this Court is of opinion that there is error in the proceedings of the said circuit court in this, that the said court rejected testimony which ought to have been admitted, and also in this, that in the charge delivered to the jury, the opinion is expressed that the patent on which this suit was instituted conveyed to Oliver Evans only an exclusive right to his improvement in manufacturing flour and meal produced by the general combination of all his machinery, and not to his improvement in the several machines applied to that purpose, and also that the said Oliver Evans was not entitled to recover if the hopper boy in his declaration mentioned had been in use previous to his alleged discovery. Therefore it is considered by this Court that the judgment of the circuit court be reversed and annulled and that the cause be remanded to the said circuit court with directions to award a venire facias de novo."
Please advise where this judgement uses foreign law as precedent.
As for Potts and Bradwell, I cannot find where the judgements were ruled based on foreign law either.
And wasn't the original poster referring to our Founding Fathers? The oldest case referred here is at least 25 years off.
Please advise.
Evans v. Eaton. 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 454 (1818) justices did not use foreign law in making the decision.
Potts v. Creager, 155 U.S. 597 (1895) justices did not use foreign law in making the decision.
Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) justices simply referred to where the US law originated (the common law of England).
Evans v. Eaton. 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 454 (1818)
Potts v. Creager, 155 U.S. 597 (1895)
Both Patent disputes, not hardly akin to the mess that Souter makes.
Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) merely references English common law
"It is to be remembered that at the time this statute was enacted we had, by express provision, adopted the common law of England, and, with three exceptions, the statutes of that country passed prior to the fourth year of James the First, so far as they were applicable to our condition."
"It is to be also remembered that female attorneys at law were unknown in England, and a proposition that a woman should enter the courts of Westminster Hall in that capacity, or as a barrister, would have created hardly less astonishment than one that she should ascend the bench of bishops, or be elected to a seat in the House of Commons."
This is a poor defense of Souter.
I don't understand why it matters if Justices use the wisdom of foreigners, either on the court or not to demonstrate logical arguments for certain propositions. They currently use briefs submitted by mere lawyers in the U.S. to base their decisions on. Why should they be allowed to read the Amicus briefs and base decisions on arguments they find there, but not allowed to read legal opinions of the foreigners?
It's not basing our laws on foreign laws, its basing our laws on reason and logic, some of which can be found in places other than some lawyer in Montana.
Unless I'm mistaken, the basics of the Constitution were modeled after the Magna Carta (England, 1215).
that, dear friend, is a oft-used cannard by such people as Ginsberg...and it distorts the truth completely....LOOK IT UP
Exactly. It seems as though many laws which were suitable in the past are still being used as measurements of what is just today, and that's just wrong.
dog training
The nightmare continues. Goodbye gun rights! Goodbye individual liberty! Goodbye limited government! Hello Nanny State! Hello "hate speech" restrictions! Hello hate crime laws!
what a twit you are. Have you been paying attention at all for the last 8 years? The only one we've got left out of your list is the right to tote around guns-- we lost individual liberty, limited government when George Bush moved into the White House.
We need USSC justices who will rule on the basis of the Constitution and now how they feel about someone who is "less fortunate". The law is the law - where you are financially, societally, religiously or any other "ly" does not determine where you stand on some sliding legal scale.
God forbid that someone like Hillary would be on the USSC, but you know that whoever Obama nominates will most likely fall in the same category. The silver lining is that we'll just be replacing one liberal with another.
If you're familiar with him, you'll know Justice O.W. Holmes was no flaming liberal. But here's what he had to say about empathy in 1897:
". . . [J]udges themselves have failed adequately to recognize their duty of weighing considerations of social advantage. The duty is inevitable, and the result of often-proclaimed judicial aversion to deal with such considerations is simply to leave the very ground and foundation of judgments inarticulate, and often unconscious . . . . I cannot but believe that if the training of lawyers led them habitually to consider more definitely and explicitly the social advantage on which the rule they lay down must be justified, they sometimes would hesitate where now they are confident, and see that really they were taking sides upon debatable and often burning questions." 10 Harv. L. Rev. 467-68 (1897).
Empathy for those less fortunate should play no part whatever in the qualifications for the Supreme Court. It is purely an ancillary characteristic.
But it is probably meaningless in practice, just a self-aggrandizing piece of fluff to utter.
So how is the Court to determine whether federal or state medical funding decisions impose "substantial obstacles" or "undue burdens" on citizens' abilities to exercise rights? Or how about right to counsel in a criminal trial? Or poll taxes? Or appropriate compensation in eminent domain claims? Or gerrymandering? Why is that so-called "conservatives" love to decry government largesse while wrapping themselves in an Originalist mantel but are nowhere to be seen when the government is abusing its power over the decidedly powerless?
You can bet that Hussein will want to replace Souter by appointing some socialist liberal loon like Ginsberg to the Court. Likely someone who loves gay marriage, union card checks, open borders, and confiscating money from achievers and giving it to failures. There are lots of good liberals to choose from: Spitzer, Edwards, Kennedy, Blagovich, Pelosi, Reed, Geitner, Jefferson, Sharpton, and the list goes on. My, how distinguished can you get?
"Two very senior administration officials politely refused to comment or speculate about Souter or possible appointments. I am told that orders have come down from the top -- as in the chief of staff's office -- that no one is to talk about this to reporters."
What else is new? Or would you call those horrible press campaigns-- I mean conferences, talking to reporters?
We all know what is going to happen here. Obama will appoint a stark raving lunatic, the Republicans will filibuster, Olympia Snow will switch to democrat to break the filibuster. Arlen Specter will be mad because he wanted to be the hero. Or maybe all the limp-wristed republicans will switch over and vote their communist beliefs... or their conscience.
How about someone who hears a case, then actually uses the Constitution as the singular guide for making his or her decision? Isn't that what the Framers had in mind? What is so difficult about that concept except that it doesn't jive with the liberal desire to usurp legislative authority when it doesn't go their way in the legitimate branch?
Go here: www.theconservativegentleman.com for a most entertaining spanking of the Republican Party...the essence of the podcast? If the Republicans had remained true to "The Contract With America," we wouldn't be faced with this devastating liberal onslaught.
amen, bro
Well here comes one world government. Say bye-bye to the United States Constitution as we now know it. Free speech-gone. Gun rights-gone. Freedom to practice religion of one's choice-gone (unless it's at the First Church of Barry O). Instead of ruling by the law of the (our) land, now it'll be the rule of every other land as long as it agrees with the 9 Supremes. God Help us all (can I say that any more?????)
Paranoia. It's what's for breakfast.
Don't be silly. We all know that "Bail-out" is what's for breakfast. It is a nutritionally balanced breakfast, high unconstitutionality and low in economic sense, sure to cause inflation.
Can we get you a show on FOX? Please, keep talking. Maybe you can drive Republican ID below 20 percent.
Typical liberal. Tries to slam Republicans for being stupid and he mispells "IQ".
That's party ID. Try again.
Ok,
Call names at FOX and Republicans all day long. The truth will set you free! FOX has the highest ratings of any of the "news" networks. The call that Republican party is dead is absurd. Obama only won the election by 8+ million votes. 55 million people did NOT vote for him and there is a Gallup pole that has 13% of OBama voters suffering from voter's remorse. Live with those facts.
The Republican Party is not dead. That's just the smell of the Real Americans who took an electoral bath in November of '08 and have sworn off bathing since.
This discussion is characterized by the usual wingnut ignorance about our legal system in general and the Supreme Court's role in it.
No one on this or any other court in the US has cited foreign law as "precedent," ever, unless the case itself required the application of foreign law. Under principles of stare decisis, precedent would be binding authority over lower courts and, in the case of the Supreme Court, its own precedent would be followed,in most cases.
When foreign law is referred to it is cited as persuasive authority and is never regarded as having the legal effect of binding precedent.Our state courts often cite decisions of the courts of other states as persuasive authority when fashioning opinions to bolster the reasoning in their opinions. There is nothing unusual or sinister in this process. Courts find persuasive authority in many areas other than legal precedents and will cite history, and findings of social and behavioral scientists, as well as statistics, in rendering legal opinions. The law does not exist in a bubble of its own making, devoid of any refernce to any other values or interests.
This reminds me of the statement made by Tom DeLay,some years ago, that he was "horrified" to learn that Justice Souter did legal research using the internet. He issued this moronic statement in blissful ignorance of the fact that everybody in the legal profession uses the internet to do legal research these days, a perfectly unobjectionable practice.
The other point of ignorance found in right wing discussions of the SCOTUS is the assumption that all or most of its work involves interpreting the Constitution. In fact, the court spends most of its time dealing with other matters of federal law, particularly, the interpretation and review of the scope, effect, and validity of federal statutes and regulations.
The pro-business bias of the present, mostly conservative, court has been documented beyond a shadow of a doubt. The result has been decisions limiting the statutory remedies of civil rights claimants, plaintiffs asserting discrimination, organized labor, consumer and enivironmental groups and favoring the claims of big business against the public, or the state against those accused or suspected of crime.
Given the influence of big money and political power over the other branches of government, the courts have always been looked to as the one branch before which even the poor and powerless stand equal under the law. Obama's statement, in this light, is perfectly understandable and not inappropriate. Wingnuts are naive in the extreme if they believe that judges should act as robotic legal technicians, immune to concepts like an instinct for justice and empathy for the plight of those whose lives and fortunes they often have to affect with their decisions. It's not a coincidence, or the bland application of technical legal precepts that has produced so many votes by Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito in favor of the rich and powerful against ordinary citizens with valid grievances or against laws and regulations enacted to protect those ordinary citizens.
succinct insofar as the Delay item, he was/is a real gem...I am glad he gone as much as the left.
your comments on how foreign law is cited only as a persuasive authority doesn't pass the smell test; with the mountain of precedent on the current books, there is no practical need for extranational consideration. And no one cares about using history etc, we are discussin actual case law from foreign courts, which is what is what Souter and Ginsberg refer to.
Maybe I just don't get "nuance."
What you lefties cannot ever seem to grasp is the notion of sovereignity.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I vote straight ticket REPUB (no suprise I guess)
As to being a pro-business court, well what of it??? People that create wealth must take many chances that the average worker cannot even begin to understand, or refuses to consider.
As to big money in political power...you blame the right????
PUH-LEEEEEZ
Your argument that "enough" precedent exists is demonstrably false and misunderstands how the common law functions.
First, if there was "enough" binding precedent to answer all the questions in the federal courts there would be "no practical need" for a Supreme Court whatever. The lower courts would merely apply the already decided case law. Further, no precedent is truly binding on the Supreme Court. It is entirely within the purview of the Court to decide that previous cases, binding though they may be on lower courts, were wrongly decided. In so doing, the Court must necessarily cite only persuasive authority in fashioning new legal rules, as the rule it is promulgating did not exist prior to the Court's establishing it.
Additionally, your argument misunderstands the operation of the common law. As Justice Holmes wrote in "The Common Law", "The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience. ... it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics." In following the great tradition of the common law, the Justices of the Supreme Court can and should look to all sources of knowledge and experience in determining how to answer sticky legal questions.
To the extent a Justice cites foreign law, he/she is merely displaying that he/she finds the foreign source informative and persuasive. This has nothing to do with sovereignty, as the Justice is just as free to ignore that which he/she finds to be unwise. While some righties may find it hard to believe, the U.S. does not have a monopoly on wisdom.
"No one on this or any other court in the US has cited foreign law as "precedent," ever, unless the case itself required the application of foreign law. Under principles of stare decisis, precedent would be binding authority over lower courts and, in the case of the Supreme Court, its own precedent would be followed, in most cases."
**********
Nice straw man argument. No reasonable person is arguing that liberals are literally using foreign decisions as binding precedent. What we don't like is when they look to foreign sources as informing the meaning of our own constitution. For example (source -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4506232):
- In a 1999 death penalty case, Breyer, citing judicial decisions from Jamaica, India, Zimbabwe, and the European Court of Human Rights said, “A growing number of courts outside the United States … have held that lengthy delay in administering a lawful death penalty renders ultimate execution inhuman, degrading, or unusually cruel.”
- In a 2002 case that ruled that mentally retarded people convicted of murder could not be given a death sentence, Stevens contended that “within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved,” citing a legal brief from the European Union as his authority.
- Last year in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down the state’s sodomy statute, Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, referred approvingly to the British Parliament decriminalizing sodomy in 1967, the European Convention on Human Rights, and a 1981 European Court of Human Rights case.
The obvious first choice should be Bill Clinton...
Being disbarred should be a requirement for President Obamas first Supreme court appointment... we have Tax cheats running the nations financial systems and The IRS.
I have very low expectations. Its like Obama is deliberately trying to do the exact opposite of the right thing. youre in terrible debt? - spend more money!!! - Need someone to run the IRS? - find a tax cheat! New Supreme court judge? Find someone who cant even keep his law license! - Makes perfect sense to me!
Lets hear it for "change"!!!!
Send in the clowns!
okay, back to work. this was my lunch hour.
Liberals, you may now take over the forum. I am sure that while you are in study hall, you can spend as much time as needed to vent your anger over...what exactly? Didn't you guys just take over the government???
The anger here buddy is all from the right. The left are fat and happy.
Who you calling fat, Otto?
Many Democrats have been elected since 2006, but I don't think that quite means that liberals just took over the government...
After the debacle of the last eight years, it's a bit odd that conservatives claim to speak for real Americans, but can't even seem to get a(n acceptably pure) conservative candidate for president nominated, never mind elected.
Maybe not so odd after all...
It's a nice parlor game. Sotomayor is getting a lot of play, woman and hispanic, but who knows. A pity Clarence or Scalia can't decide to retire and save us all a lot of embarrasment. Given that Obama has a probable eight years the right must be praying the grim reaper doesn't put in an appearance. The sheer ignorance and childishness of most of the right comments here have become ubiquitous across blogland. Obama is driving these folks insane and boy are they wearing it on their sleeves.
You can bet that whoever is nominated, he/she will not have the slightest knowledge about our Constitution. He/she will be a miserable excuse for a "judge". Seems like there ought to be some test about our founding principles someone in this high position should be able to pass. And an IQ test, too. Maybe with a lower cutoff of around 125.
Humble of you to exclude yourself on the basis of knowledge and IQ.
Believe it or not, the nominee will indeed be subjected to a test of her or his knowledge of the consitution, the role of the court, and her/his positions on established constitutional precedent. We call it a confirmation hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, where the nominee and other witnesses may be questioned at any length on any topic. Faux news may even carry it--you should watch.
Most nominees also use that stage to demonstrate that their IQs are a great deal higher than the questioners. Mr. Cornyn of Texas will show us all how that works.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?????????
SHE ISNT QUALIFIED TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE LET ALONE A JUSTICE..
IN THE TIME SHE HAS SPENT BEING SECRETARY IS HAS MADE OUR COUNTRY LOOK LIKE A JOKE..
HILLARY ISNT A LEADER.. SHE COULDNT LEAD A HOT DOG STAND DOWN THE ROAD.
Are all-caps really necessary? A screaming banshee is what comes to mind when reading posts like that. Your banal argument just reeks mid-'90s GOP partisan hack to really fit in such a high quality blog as Marc Ambinder's.
Yo,xinunus, turn of the Caps Lock, champ. It's on the left side of the keyboard, man. Just press it once.
"Obama, a constitutional law lecturer, has said that the single most important qualification his appointments must possess is empathy for those who are less fortunate."
What does empathy for a specific group have to do with constitutional law? The constitutionality of the law must be determined without emotion or prejudice. President Obama apparently lacks understanding of the US Constitition and its intent.
Why not put Sandra Day O'Connor back on the court?
The original reason why O'Connor left the court was to care for her husband who had advanced Alzheimer's disease. By the time she actually left the bench, his disease had advanced so far as to not require O'Connor's help, as he completely lost all memory of her and was actually seeing another woman. By then O'Connor realized that she had made the mistake of leaving the court when she did.
I know this will never happen. But it's certainly an interesting thing to speculate about.
Here's what Fox and Friends had to say about Souter's potential replacement. I guess we can expect more talk like this during the selection process:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/05/fox-and-friends-reacts-to-david-souter.html
I am 100% ready for the nomination of Tobias Barrington Wolff. You know who I'm talking about, Mr. President. Do the cool thing!
Since I can read neither sincerity nor sarcasm in your straight-forward post, I'm not sure if you're for him, or meant the post another way. I'd never heard of this man until this post and Googled his name.
He has a very impressive list of credentials in a relatively short (obtaining his JD in 1997) career. He is not a judge but an academician.
A fair percentage of his writings and publications (though most seem not to be) regard gay and lesbian rights. Which is why I mentioned that I wasn't sure how to interpret your post. From what I read, he seems to have a keen legal mind. Thank you for mentioning him.
As a straight, married man I feel that gay marriage is not the societal pariah that so many make it out to be. Many gay couples stay together longer than many marriages (have you seen the current divorce rate?). And those that argue that marriage is for procreation should also argue that women past child-bearing age should not marry, nor should any man with a vasectomy or woman whose had a tubal ligation. And if the argument is based on scripture, they should also argue that parents have the right to have disobedient children stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and that any business owner that opens shop on Sunday should also be killed (Exodus 35:2). Can't just pick and choose which bit of scripture is to be followed and which is not.
Anyway, hoping that President Obama chooses a nominee that truly takes the CONSTITUTION as legal scripture, to be followed religiously (I'm just full of puns, no?), he could do worse than Wolff. Although all worthy candidates should be diligently considered.
God defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Read His book.
We're speaking of the Constitution, Karen. The waning influence of the evangelical right can be attributed in large part to its inability to acknowledge that the Constitution of the United States is not a Book of the Bible.
'Strict Constitutional Constructionists' who think it necessary to amend our Constitution to ban same-sex marriage...'Pro-Life Christians' who favor torture and the death penalty...shopping for campaign planks at the lumberyard of hypocrisy makes your one true way irrelevant to the majority of Americans--perfectly fine if you're satisfied with generating great noise while wielding little influence...and if there's one lesson we liberals have taken from the Delays and Gingriches of the world, it's that political influence is to be wielded with a vengeance.
Karen, you maybe need to get out of the house more.
I think is time Obama stops playing "bipartisan"; a choice for Supreme is a very important thing to play games with it.
In order to counteract the rabid "Four Riders of the Apocalypse", Obama should choose a rabid liberal; and hold on and fight the Republicans' onrush tooth to tooth.
I also think, and I know you'll feel sick at the stomach, Obama should choose a Hispanic; just think about it: the Jewish had the first Supreme at 1911--from then on they did not stop going up—they’re integrated. The poor Hispanics are here just as well, and they cannot grow; they need some representation, because like it or dislike it, they are more numerous than blacks; if that is not a chunk of America's GDP, I do not know what it is... without representation.
For our own convenience, Hispanics should have a say; a little tiny weeny say. Is the only way we can all really say: “Ok, we are these, and let see what we can do all together”. Otherwise we're just kidding ourselves, playing world-leaders when we're denying our own fabric. I think we can't last too much denying our own beings, at the head of anything, much less of the world.
OK, so the President should nominate someone based on ethnicity and not necessarily because the nominee should be the most qualified. I understand the reasoning behind Affirmative Action, to a point. But this isn't a job at a local supermarket or even attorney's office. This is the highest court in the US.
Having said that, if someone of Hispanic descent is the most qualified, he/she should be the nominee.
Yes, as a growing percentage of the population is Hispanic (legal or otherwise, yes, I said it), they deserve more representation at the higher levels of government. That comes from voting. However, to appoint someone to a lifetime position of highest legal authority, all qualifications should be considered. Ethnicity is not a qualification. It is incidental. Although politicians DO try to cater to voting blocs and placate whichever group they deem necessary to placate for the next election. So you may get your wish, after all. I just hope that person is the right person to become Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
So what if there was a one world government?
Could you not cope?
I can cope with anything this pagan world throws at me.
I'm still here arent I?
You need to realize that God is always in control, no matter what stupid idea mankind gets in their heads.
God is God.
"God is dead."
-Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead."
-God
Since everyone else seems to claim the right to speak for 'God,' I suppose I can, also.
God speaks for Himself. He wrote a book.
First they need to find someone at that level of the stratosphere that owes no back taxes. Could be a long search.
It does not matter who makes up the Supreme Court, they never protect our rights anyway. The SCOTUS allows the gov't to constantly violate our rights:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, Wikipedia and Facebook.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing at Gitmo.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting illegal wars without declaration.
Impeach them all (both parties) and save this great country.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
I do believe the SCOTUS is REactive as opposed to PROactive. They can't just observe something and say "Stop that!" I could be wrong, but I think that a case has to be brought before the court before they can rule on its subject matter.
Every two years we get the chance to oust everyone in the House and roughly 1/3 of the Senate. But still there are members who've been in office for 30+ years. Whose fault is that?
Sure, "throw all the bums out and let's start from scratch" sounds good, but it's impractical. And even if it could happen, it would be a matter of time before it got right back to the way it is now.
And it seems to me that much of what you reference happened in the previous 8 years. Hmmm