Shaping the Supremes
May 2nd 2009 22:19
Supreme Court Justice David Souter is stepping down. Barack Obama will be called on to name a replacement.
Prepare the gauntlet.
The opposing camps are already gearing up for the fight. They are warming up the phone systems and fax machines and internet connections so that they can be ready to bombard members of the Senate with pleas, demands, and ultimatums. They have raised funds for this event and gathered their armies.
I think it's safe to say that conservatives won't be happy with Obama's choice. Elections have consequences. This is one such consequence. With that being said, I'm not in panic mode over this upcoming pick. Souter was a reliably liberal vote on the court. Obama will replace him with another reliably liberal justice. It shouldn't really change the outcomes emanating from court decisions. What it will do is replace a 69-year-old liberal justice with a significantly younger liberal justice. It will secure that seat as a liberal vote for a while.
From a Republican viewpoint, their weak position in the Senate means that they will have little influence on the nominee. Obama will pretty much get who he wants. What the conservatives have to guard against is the appointment of a radically liberal justice. It Obama goes with an uber-lefty, the Republicans could rally with conservative Democrats to stand against the choice. Also, it is a possibility that Obama's choice could turn out to be more moderate or conservative than the vetters predict. That's what happened with Souter. He was nominated by Bush 41 and was proclaimed to be a "slam dunk" for conservatives. Either the vetting failed miserably, or Souter just took a left turn at the intersection of Supreme Street and Court Boulevard. That could happen to Obama, but I suspect he'll be extra-careful in vetting his possible nominees.
In terms of who he will nominate, I imagine that he will shoot for a check-box pick. As we saw in the campaign, Obama and the Democrats love identity politics. If Obama can nominate a gay Hispanic Muslim woman, he would be hailed as a check-boxing genius and a hero of special interests.
In summary, though, this nomination shouldn't be a game-changer. Obama will replace a liberal with a liberal and the status quo will be maintained.
Prepare the gauntlet.
The opposing camps are already gearing up for the fight. They are warming up the phone systems and fax machines and internet connections so that they can be ready to bombard members of the Senate with pleas, demands, and ultimatums. They have raised funds for this event and gathered their armies.
I think it's safe to say that conservatives won't be happy with Obama's choice. Elections have consequences. This is one such consequence. With that being said, I'm not in panic mode over this upcoming pick. Souter was a reliably liberal vote on the court. Obama will replace him with another reliably liberal justice. It shouldn't really change the outcomes emanating from court decisions. What it will do is replace a 69-year-old liberal justice with a significantly younger liberal justice. It will secure that seat as a liberal vote for a while.
From a Republican viewpoint, their weak position in the Senate means that they will have little influence on the nominee. Obama will pretty much get who he wants. What the conservatives have to guard against is the appointment of a radically liberal justice. It Obama goes with an uber-lefty, the Republicans could rally with conservative Democrats to stand against the choice. Also, it is a possibility that Obama's choice could turn out to be more moderate or conservative than the vetters predict. That's what happened with Souter. He was nominated by Bush 41 and was proclaimed to be a "slam dunk" for conservatives. Either the vetting failed miserably, or Souter just took a left turn at the intersection of Supreme Street and Court Boulevard. That could happen to Obama, but I suspect he'll be extra-careful in vetting his possible nominees.
In terms of who he will nominate, I imagine that he will shoot for a check-box pick. As we saw in the campaign, Obama and the Democrats love identity politics. If Obama can nominate a gay Hispanic Muslim woman, he would be hailed as a check-boxing genius and a hero of special interests.
In summary, though, this nomination shouldn't be a game-changer. Obama will replace a liberal with a liberal and the status quo will be maintained.
| 47 |
| Vote |
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by GlenB
Raw Fish
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by Andrew Biviano
The Middle Ground
What has always amazed me is that conservatives went straight to calling Souter a turncoat or traitor after he got on the court, instead of stopping and thinking "If this person who we respected and admired enough to put on the Supreme Court holds this opinion, then maybe it's not crazy, and we should at least listen and consider it." It's not just him: O'Connor, Kennedy, and even the most "liberal" of all -- Stevens, were appointed by Republicans. Yet millions who may have never read a single supreme court opinion, or studied the Constitution, can confidently proclaim that the court's interpretation of the Constitution is wrong because it doesn't follow their party's doctrine.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I don't really lay much blame on those liberal justices appointed by Republicans. I mostly blame the Republican presidents for not doing their homework. Surely there was something in those justices' backgrounds that would've tipped off the vetters. And if there just wasn't enough of a track record by which to assess those nominees, they should've been passed over to begin with. In reality, though, it's usually more complicated than that. It depends largely on the makeup of the Senate. If a Republican president is dealing with a Dem-controlled (or even moderate) Senate, he won't be able to nominate an ultra-conservative judge, anyway.
Comment by Andrew Biviano
The Middle Ground
I'm not saying that liberal is necessarily right and conservative is wrong, it is a case by case question. I'm saying that if a brilliant judge with certain known ideological leanings reaches a conclusion that is contrary to that ideology, there must be a good reason. Maybe we should listen. When Scalia and Ginsburg agree on an opinion, it certainly gives it more weight in my mind. When four Republican appointed judges (e.g. Souter, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy) support "liberal" rulings, maybe we should just accept that they're on to something (like the fact that the constitution is a pretty "liberal" document), rather than pronounce them wrong and find someone to blame.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I look at each case individually, but I generally disagree with the view of liberal judges (like Souter) in many of the more contentious cases. This is a cliche by now, but liberals sometimes try to legislate from the bench. That's not their role. We have a legislature for that. They also shouldn't be considering in any way laws of other countries in forming their decisions. And they sometimes try to overreach and make broad rulings. Thankfully, Roberts is good about trying to get the court to rule narrowly in an attempt to build consensus. Liberal judges also believe in the constitution as a "living document". To me, that means that they want to interpret it with little consideration for the original intent and read into it their own views. I'm more of an originalist.
I don't automatically agree with all rulings by the conservative judges, either. I think they are, at times, too willing to lean on the side of executive power and privilege. I'm also uncomfortable at times with their willingness to side unflinchingly with corporations over individuals' rights.
As a whole, however, I agree with the conservative judges much more often than I agree with the liberal judges. Could Souter be right sometimes? Sure. As I mentioned, though, I look at each case individually. In doing so, I tend to agree much more with the side that Souter is not on.