John Paul Stevens, one of the most legally erudite voices in the country, announced his retirement Friday. The link below offers some comments by six of his clerks and through those comments, some insight into the kind of person Stevens is. Contrastingly, I found the story about William Rehnquist a little illuminating :).
6 clerks talk about Stevens from the NY Times
Now the battle to replace him has begun. Republicans have claimed they will filibuster any nominee they consider to be "too liberal".
This is a funny and laughably hypocritical stance by those who demanded that Democrats NOT filibuster selections by George Bush - including Samual Alito and John Roberts, both of whom are FAR more conservative than Sotomayor or Stevens are liberal (though Stevens is certainly more liberal than Sotomayor).
When Alito was confirmed, he was not filibustered, nor was Roberts. There was a time when Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were considered part of the conservative wing - back when Harry Blackmun was on the bench, and it is a telling sign that in the time prior to her retirement (and since) both O'Connor and Kennedy are now considered "moderates." They are nothing of the sort, it is just that the conservative element has become so strident, so virulently demanding that they get their way, that anyone (like Kennedy or O'Connor) who respects Stare Decisis or even just the fundamentals enshrined in the Constitution (of say, jurisprudence, or respecting due process or preventing random searches), well, THOSE kind of independent thoughts are intolerable.
Yet, Alito and Roberts were approved with Democratic votes in support (though far more in support for Roberts (22) than Alito (4)). The Republicans threatened to do away with the filibuster (the actual "nuclear" option) over judicial appointments - not SCOTUS appointments either, just federal bench appointments and demanded "up or down" votes on those bench appointments. On Alito and Roberts they reminded us all and "warned" the Democrats that the role of the Senate is to "advise and consent" based on qualifications, not ideology.
Now, not only will they NOT vote to approve, not only with they NOT vote on qualifications (anyone remember when Bush nominated Harriet Meyers?), they will prevent even consideration.
So, my answer is, call these repugnant hypocrites' bluff(s) - put forward a person as liberal as Alito is conservative to maintain balance on the court, and dare them to filibuster. Double down on their double-standard, and advise them that if they DO filibuster, they'll get it back in spades when there is a Republican President. Further, tell them you will only appoint someone as liberal as Robert or Alito is conservative and ask them if that is somehow unfair? Then, buy air time showing all of the comments by Republicans still in the Senate saying "advise and consent" and remind them they don't get to chose who the President nominates, the President does. It is HIS right, not theirs, they didn't win the White House in 2008. So it is time, it is time to put another Thurgood Marshall or William Brennan on the Court, they certainly were no more liberal than Alito is conservative, and by contrast to the woefully supported (meaning he provides no support for his stances) Clarence Thomas, minds like Blackmun's or Marshall's have been sorely lacking for the past 20 or so years (ok 16 in one case). The eloquence of the man who argued Brown vs. the Board of Education is far more meaningful than the man who voted (alone) to indefinetely imprison a US Citizen (Thomas) in violation of our Constitutional principals.
It is time to appoint another Marshall, or Blackmun, or for that matter, Stevens - so that we can again see what actual jurisprudence represents.
I think a large part of the Democrats problems are contained in their seeming lack of any decent PR or other advertising. The Republicans have been on the attack on the airwaves, either directly or through their proxies (big corporations, etc) since President Obama took office. They've also marched in their typical goose-step (including the Seig Heil from time to time) and like Hitler, many of them seem to think that if they tell a big enough lie long enough, people will believe it. (e.g. Palin, Bachmann, etc)
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the Democrats haven't put up any effective opposition. They have made some weak arguments, but the leadership to counter the republican attack dogs has largely been lacking. Its time for the Democratic leadership to "grow a pair" and to start fighting back against the Rethuglicans.
I'll be happy to see anyone less mediocre and extreme than Clarence Thomas.
ReplyDeleteI like Kagan; would have preferred her to Sotomayor as the last appointment.
I'd like to see hiim appoint Wanda Sykes, or maybe Russ Fiengold or Keith Olbermann :).
ReplyDeleteOr Pen, what about one of the Clintons, if your theme here is 'who most would make the Right howl in protest'?
ReplyDeleteA cynical person would suggest Obama propose someone really liberal to an extreme - could we start using the phrase rock-ribbed liberal? - and then, after they were rejected, and the Right was worn out by arguing against a candidate, propose someone who is less extreme, but still far left.
Nah, Obama will simply try to pick a good candidate in the first place. He understands politics well enough to appreciate the strategy of getting something done, but I think he takes the Supreme Court too seriously to play that kind of game. I sure hope so.
I think its interesting that Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) has actually suggested Hillary Clinton for the Supreme Court. While she does have the generally accepted minimum credentials (A Juris Doctor degree), I think that nominating her would serve no purpose except to cause foaming at the mouth of Republicans and invite the mother of all filibusters.
ReplyDelete