progressive movement in the federal judiciary?

[Ninja Jordan]

The conservative movement over the past 30 years has expended a large amount of effort in educating and placing young, narrow-minded individuals in positions of power, enabling a large number of them to be nominated to the federal judiciary. The Democratic Party has fallen asleep at the wheel, and has failed to grow a pool of young candidates. I believe many legal academics et al. could serve as potential candidates to the federal judiciary should a Democrat ever gain the presidency. In determining whether a candidate is qualified, 3 essential criteria should be taken into consideration: (a) born after 1953, (b) have a common sense view of the Constitution with a clear understanding that a corporate entity is not afforded the same rights as a human being, and (c) believes the Supreme Court's decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad is grossly adverse to the principles of American republican democracy and must be overturned (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad). A couple of potential candidates for future federal appellate judgeships:

Lawrence Lessig, born 1961


B.A., B.S., Pennsylvania
J.D., Yale Law School
He is currently professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications. Clerked under Judge Richard Posner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Koh">Harold Koh, born 1954


B.A., Harvard University
J.D., Harvard Law School

Korean-American lawyer, legal scholar, former U.S. State Department official, and current Dean of the Yale Law School. Koh is prominent as an advocate of human rights and civil rights, and has argued and written briefs on a wide number of cases before U.S. appellate courts. Koh has testified before the U.S. Congress more than a dozen times. In January 2005, Dean Koh, along with Franklin Pierce Law Center dean John Hutson, testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general of the United States, because of his alleged role in attempting to provide legal guidance to the U.S. military justifying abusive interrogation practices, including that the War on Terror "renders obsolete" and "renders quaint" aspects of the Geneva Conventions.

[Ninja Jordan]

1. kick