Elizabeth Warren on the USSC short list.

[Toucano]

Harvard Law school dean Martha Minow has been on the school's faculty since 1981. And Elizabeth Warren heads the Congressional Oversight Panel, which reviews government efforts to boost the shaky financial and private investment sector. Neither woman has judicial experience.

snip

Warren is also a Harvard law professor. She has been a regular on the talk-show circuit, including CNN, to discuss the economy's effect on families. The Oklahoma native has also co-authored two books with her daughter.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/12/scotus.justice.names/index.html?hpt=T1

This was probably talked about earlier, but I was not available. LOL! So it didn't really happen!


I have mixed feelings. One the plus side, I think she is very wise and easily confirmed. But I would hate to see her influence watered down by Thomas et al.

I'm not a Johnny-come-lately. Like many DUers, I read Prof. Warren's books many years ago, long before Michael Moore made her well-known. She really "gets it" and would be a great addition to the court.

[MajorChode]

1. While she would make a great addition to the USSC

I can't say she'd be easily confirmed and that's why I don't think she'll get picked. Obama is going to pick someone who will sail through the confirmation hearings and not cause a problem for the November elections. I suspect Elena Kagan will be his choice.

[usregimechange]

3. I agree and also do not think she will be the choice due to her age

[Toucano]

6. Really? You think she's too old?

I don't consider her age an issue.

[elleng]

17. SURE HOPE NOT,

because if it were so, 75% of the population would be disqualified, and we'd have NO ONE!

[CBGLuthier]

23. She is the exact same age as Clarence Thomas is NOW

and older than John Roberts.

We need someone who will be on the court for 20 years or more.

[Gormy Cuss]

28. In twenty years Warren will be eight years younger than Stevens is now.

She'll be younger than Thurgood Marshall was when he retired, and about the same age as when many justices retire, in her early 80s. There's no reason to exclude her based on her age.

[Toucano]

32. 6/23/48 - Thomas, 6/22/49, Warren

That's not the "exact" same, to be picky. LOL!

But your point is well taken.

Ginsburg was appointed in 1993 when she was 60, however. I wouldn't trade her for a younger model.

[Sebastian Doyle]

34. Ginsburg might not be the best example to make your point here

since it's very likely that she will be retiring within the next few years herself, given her recurring health problems.

[Toucano]

35. Are you kidding? She's been an excellent justice.

No one has a sharper mind and sounder judgement. She's been seated for 17 years.

To retire in "the next few years" will give her pretty close to 20 years on the bench.

If people are suggesting that Clinton made a mistake appointing the then 60 year old Ginsburg, I would heartily disagree.

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. I have no problems with her record.

I'm just saying that right NOW we need to put someone on the bench that will be there as long as the two morons that Chimpy appointed, and will be there after Fat Tony and Clarence the clown have retired/died/been reassigned to traffic court in Hell.

As long as we have electro-fraud machines, the corporate whore media, and (because of Opie Roberts)unlimited corporate (Republican) spending in election season, we can't count on the certainty of a Democratic president being the one to nominate replacement justices every decade or so.

[Toucano]

7. What aspect do you think would cause problems at the confirmation?

From my view, it's a smooth confirmation for Prof. Warren.

[JackRiddler]

13. absolutely

In short, they wouldn't dare.

[Toucano]

14. It's beginning to remind me of presidential primary time on DU.

:puke:

Lines are being drawn...smells familiar. LOL!

[elleng]

18. I agree!

Could live without THAT smell! (No Womiting, please,Toucan!)

[JackRiddler]

29. Because we have even less say in this than we did in that?

[JackRiddler]

12. ugh. Please no more Kagan promotion - I don't buy it.

She's obviously the DLC/bluedog pick and that's why she's getting all the early press.

[MajorChode]

27. I'm not promoting her

I hope she is NOT Obama's pick.

I'm just pointing out the politics that are going to come into play.

[JackRiddler]

30. Not because you support her...

But the "Kagan inevitable-ism" is transparent as a PR campaign. Why? Because the outlets who have all put her top of the list make clear they have absolutely no basis for thinking it one way or another, except presumably whispers from favored sources who are themselves partisan about one choice or another. Basically, they're transporting the Republican narrative of oh, how terrible it would be if the choice were "controversial" (possessed of brains, integrity and common sense) and caused "polarization," so they've preemptively picked the one on the list who seems most like a "compromise" (another capitulation to the yahoo minority).

[MajorChode]

31. I wouldn't even call her pick a "compromise"

Nobody knows that much about how Kagan would perform as a USSC justice (perhaps not even Kagan herself). She might be another Scalia and she might be another Stevens. As yet, she's been mum on controversial issues so the GOPhers just aren't going to have any ammunition to use against her. I think her biggest opposition is going to come from the left.

[JackRiddler]

37. If she gets picked, rightly so!

Obama's replacement of Stevens should not serve to move the court to the right!

Can you imagine if Bush were replacing Thomas or Scalia? There'd be no concern for what Democrats would accept.

[MajorChode]

38. I agree completely

However, for right or wrong we have a president that has been known to plan strategically rather than tactically. I just think he's going to make a strategic play here and pick someone who is not going to drag out confirmation into the election cycle. Maybe he'll surprise me and do the opposite. I hope so.

[JackRiddler]

39. How does Kagan help with the election?

The right will "Hillary-ize" her a minute after her selection. The same fight will occur regardless of who is chosen.

[MajorChode]

41. I don't think she would be that hard to get through the Senate

Even Sotomayor only took 2 months to confirm and ultimately she made it with more than 2/3rds of the Senate consenting. It is extremely difficult to prevent a nominee from ultimately going forward and being confirmed. Believe it or not, there are still a few GOPher senators who still believe that presidential elections have consequences. The biggest political problem is dragging a confirmation out for an extended period of time, especially if the right can paint them as being controversial. Kagan also has the advantage of recently going through the Senate confirmation process, so any major issued the GOPhers had with her would have been brought out then.

Personally I think Obama would be better off with someone like Sotomayor. Give the GOPhers who are out of touch with the mainstream something to grumble about, but still keep the left fairly happy and ultimately get confirmed relatively quickly.

[JackRiddler]

42. What's wrong with a fight on this?

Do the right thing, have a fight about it, win the confirmation anyway, and do better in November. Why do you think the Republicans making trouble about SC picks helps them? I dispute. A strong pick gives people a reason to vote for the Democrats. A weak, corporatist nomination will alienate more people.

You're expecting too much rationality from the Republicans. Enough of them will attack and delay and posture around ANY pick, and never mind that some of them will have voted to confirm Kagan before. They'll find a reason to grandstand, as they do with every single thing that Obama does proactively (even though almost all of it has continued the Bush agenda on "security" and "defense" and the corporatist one on economics and finance).

Any rational people among the Republicans (in itself the province of self-serving idiots) who see an SC dispute as a bad election year strategy have no authority left to rein in the yahoos and hardliners. Talk radio, FOX, the teabag brigades and the abundance of actual and not pretend wackos in Congress itself will drive what they do. They're obsessed with Obama the bad socialist black man and they're not going to wise up. Don't help them! Give them an SC pick they can really howl about. Imagine them spending the summer fighting someone like Elizabeth Warren who is as Middle American in style as it gets.

Give them enough rope!

(Not that it's going to happen, sadly.)

[MajorChode]

43. I don't have any problem with a fight.

Frankly I'd love to see it. Every chance the GOPher have to show their true colors is a great thing. The GOPhers can play to their base all they want (and by base I mean the knuckledragging hillbillies). I'm very confident of the GOPhers ability to hang themselves when given enough rope. They have never disappointed in that department. They might temporarily get a few more knuckledraggers away from their drunken stupor to vote, but they are ultimately going to alienate those with more than 2 synapses actively firing.

[cali]

20. there's no one on that list who will sail through. No one.

[elleng]

2. Her 'influence' is not as to the law, as such,

but rather financials etc, about which she really 'gets it.' She's clearly brilliant, and would address ANY scotus issues extremely well. Which means to me that she's no knee-jerk ANYTHING!

Here's what wapo says WH says about the list, similar to CNN, eh?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/12/AR2010041204242.html?hpid=topnews

[Toucano]

9. Thanks for the link.

To me, the pre-condition of judicial experience is a part of the problem.

Not that there aren't qualified candidates on the federal bench already, but a fresh perspective is so valuable. Especially if the nominee has demonstrated sound judgement in the past.

We tend to think to linearly these days. By all rights, the House, as a representative democracy, should be composed of teachers, dentists, trash collectors, and lawyers. But it's mostly lawyers. That's why it tends to lean in a certain direction, I think.

My main reservation about Prof. Warren is that a SC post could limit her ability to speak honestly and openly, which she does so well.

[elleng]

I agree with your reservation! Enable her to keep talking!

There is no precondition as to judicial experience, and if I had the time I'd find some recently cited evidence demonstrating that to be the case. (Earl Warren was a GOVERNOR! of CALIFORNIA!)

I think I think linearly (got it?) and I LUV the idea of 'my rep, the dentist!' Of course, the founders had NO expectations about lawyers; to the contrary, House was intended as a chamber of farmers etc.

As to members being lawyers and leaning in a certain direction, I don't think I understand. They lean in the 'elect me again' direction, not, I think, especially related to being lawyers.

THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS, Toucan!

[elleng]

16. dupe

[maglatinavi]

4. USSC

I don't know about Obama, but my choice is Hillary.

:woohoo: :woohoo: :patriot: :patriot: :applause: :applause:

[Tx4obama]

5. Deleted - nevermind. n/t

[onehandle]

8. She's best utilized out in the open and on camera.

She could talk me into buying a Toyota or sending her a dozen red roses every day.

sigh.......

[Cresent City Kid]

10. I say let her keep digging into the financial mess

Don't kick her upstairs, let her finish.

[Toucano]

11. You know, that's a good point

When you say, "kick her upstairs" it's almost like removing the greatest champion the consumer and middle class have.

That's food for thought.

She's a long shot anyway, but nice to be acknowledged.

Now if she gets the nomination, you've made me suspicious that it's a plan to keep the status quo un-challenged.

DAMN YOU and you good points! :hi:

[Cresent City Kid]

15. A caveat

If she does finish and they listen to her recommendations, then I'd rubber stamp her for the Supreme Court in a hearbeat. I don't think the timing will work out for that though.

[vssmith]

21. Maybe they want to put her on the SC to keep her from speaking out on the financial mess

[Voltaire]

22. That is what I am thinking

She is getting too close to the trail of the real perps in the financial mess. I think they would put her on the Supreme Court just to turn the heat off. I think she would be GREAT on the Court, but she is needed where she is.

[SoCalDem]

19. We need her doing what she'a doing.. and we need her on tv, laying out all the facts

tucking her away at SCOTUS would be a waste of her talents

[Paulie]

24. So is her not being President a waste too...

But she can do an awesome lot of good with 20 years on the USSC. :) :) :)

Wish we had 100 of her... http://dailybail.com/home/do-not-mess-with-elizabeth-warren-planet-money-audio-intervi.html

[SoCalDem]

25. I had SO hoped she would be Treasury Secretary

instead of Geithner:(

[karynnj]

26. She would be incredibly influential on issue with a Finance component

So, everyone calling for someone to stop the corportists, she is likely as good as it gets here. Both because of her positions, but also for her knowledge and articulateness on these issues. From what I remember of the backgrounds of several more recent appointees, this was not their area of expertise. As a result, she could be very influential.

[Sebastian Doyle]

33. Elizabeth Warren needs to be Treasury Secretary.

Dump Timmy the Elf, give her that job, and appoint someone else who does not have the same last name as two of PNAC's founders (Kagan) to the Supreme Court.

[Nikki Stone1]

40. YES!

That's where she can do the most good right now.