Supreme Court: I want to know the most progressive picks Obama could do.

[vaberella]

Okay I just saw Rachel's show and she tossed out a few names I had to write down. Youtube and VEOH are wonderful sites because I get to see videos of these people talking. That being said, I'm leaning Stevenson but I want to hear more. So I can start touting my pic for SC when the debate gets in full swing.

Give me the names guys...I need the names.

Just like on Rachel's show.

Big/Massive Fight:
Medium Fight (but nominated):
Low Fight (nominated and no problem for Repub fools):

Here's the vid that pushes me towards Stevenson, but there are more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x263367#263434

Video links would be great too.

[denimgirly]

1. At best Obama will choose moderates or leaning right...no true progressives.

Obama tends to be swayed by the rights uproars and the constant babble of Faux and so his decision will once again go with at best a moderate..no chance for a Stevens like progressive. With a right leaning he will still get angry comments from the right but it just wont be as much. Can u imagine if it was a true progressive? World War III.

[boppers]

3. All suggestions will be treated by the right as "too liberal", and by the left as "too conservative"

World War III is gonna happen anyways.

[CBR]

5. Yup... nt

[jefferson_dem]

16. My advice: Dismiss the nutty reactions from both extremes.

[maxsolomon]

48. the nutty reactions aren't flowing from the left "extreme"

please stop playing the GOP's word games and buying into this false equivalence.

to start with, there is barely a LEFT in america, let alone an equivalent to the mountain of hard-RW shit that overflows every day of every week of every year.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Your point is ruined by suggesting he'd nominate a right-leaning justice.

And unfortunately, that statement suggests you're not familiar with the last person he nominated.

[jefferson_dem]

13. This one's point was ruined from the get go.

Not very transparent, in my opinion.

Just sayin...

[vaberella]

7. Thanks...but that's not the answer to my question.

I'll keep what you say in mind.

[Phx_Dem]

11. I'm not advocating a right-leaner, but Justice Stevens was a Republican

(reportedly), and look how he turned out. Ditto for Justice Souter. My point is that you never know how someone is going to turn out once they are on the Court, because then they are truly free to vote how they want without worrying about leaving a "paper trail" that may someday be used to keep them off the Supreme Court.

President Obama should (and will) pick the person he thinks is most qualifed and someone who excels at persuading others, and not worry so much about how liberal they are. Whomever he picks will be liberal enough.

[vaberella]

18. Yup. When I say progressive---I'm looking at a broad thinker who respects the constitution.

I'm not speaking on the side of any political affiliation---I should have made that clear in my post.

[Phx_Dem]

20. I'm with you!

B-)

Obama is smart enough to know why kind of person he's nominating.

[jefferson_dem]

12. Leaning right?

Of who? Nader?

Who, in your opinion, are you referring to?

Whatever. You've shown yourself to be an unrelenting, unreasonable critic of Obama since you've been here. Guess that shouldn't change now.

[Arkana]

15. I'm sure that you have proof to back this up.

Go ahead, go get it. I'll wait.

[cali]

31. you evidently know very little about Stevens or Obama.

[phleshdef]

47. Right, because Sotomayor is a moderate to right leaning justice.

Or not.

[sandnsea]

2. I want another woman,

I like Diane Wood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Wood

[vaberella]

8. Yeah, she's on my high list.

I want an Asian, but I'll take any intelligent progressive.

[dsc]

30. now let me or another gay say we want a gay and all hell breaks loose

this, not so much.

[sandnsea]

33. Kathleen Sullivan is awesome too

http://www.law.stanford.edu/directory/profile/57/

Did hell break loose in a gay SCOTUS thread? It's unfortunate. Yes there should be someone gay on the supreme court. If he's going to nominate a gay justice, he may as well make this the year of "the gay" and overturn everything at once.

I personally think we need another minority justice too. Any eligible gay black or asian women out there?

[dsc]

34. Sullivan is our best shot in terms of qualifications

I don't know of any minorities other than the one in Wndycity's thread.

[Sebastian Doyle]

44. There is something that troubles me about Sullivan though

From Wikipedia.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sullivan

She has also represented Shell Oil in an appeal to limit the company's liability for toxic waste

I think the oil corporations have enough friends on the Supreme Court, considering 6 of the current justices are Bush Crime Family appointees (with Stevens himself being the only one of those 6 not likely to take their side of any issue)

Apparently (from a link on her Stanford page) she's also scheduled to represent Wyeth pharmaceuticals in a case before the SCOTUS next fall (assuming she doesn't get the gig).

Is it too much to ask that we get someone on the Supreme Court who doesn't shill for the very industries that already have too goddamn much influence over the government?


Yeah, I'm sure someone will tell me how I'm "reading too much into this", but when I see the same person defending oil companies "right" to dump toxic waste, and then turn around and argue for pharma companies having no liabilities when their drugs harm children, well that doesn't sound like someone who has the best interests of this country in mind.

[rasputin1952]

4. Ting is, without even naming a nominee, the RW has decided the individual

will be so close to Stalin, that once again, the "country will cease to exist" if the whomever it is is confirmed. Another round of "Armageddon will descend upon us". Satan will rise up and consume the the first born of true Americans as far as the RW is concerned.

Considering the fight will be ferocious regardless, I hope he nominated a left leaning Progressive with ironclad credentials. Gender, race, religion, sexual orientaion or anything other peripheral should have nothing to do with it...just go for a left leaning justice to try and balance out the damage the RW has done.

[saltpoint]

42. I think that's a very accurate read of the likely right-wing response. And

the more left leaning the nominee the better the long-term balance on the High Court.

Excellent post.

[disndat]

9. None of the above.

Eat you heart out. It's going to be someone persuasive who could move Justice Anthony Kennedy to the progressive side.

[vaberella]

17. Gimme someone?! n/t

[disndat]

21. I read it in a recent DU.

Goodwin Liu. You can check his background in Google or if you can find it in DU. Senator Dianne Feinstein has already vetted him, since he is from U.C. Berkeley Boalt Hall Law School. I think probably, Justice Stevens has vetted him too. Maybe that is why he feels free to step down. A big guess on my part.

[vaberella]

27. Yes I know.

But he is nominated for the 9th Circuit already. He's great, but secondly, I don't think he's judged any cases (<---And this will be his disqualifier).

The reason Justice Stevens feels free to step down has nothing to do with Goodwin Liu. Justice Stevens said in an interview that he feels Obama will make a good choice in picking his successor and he trusts Obama's opinion on that. He had said there was no better President to step down for.

His departure will hand President Obama his second chance to leave a lasting mark on the nine-member Supreme Court. "I will surely do it while he's still president," Stevens said, who plans to leave either this year or next.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/03/AR2010040301693.html

[ruggerson]

10. Pam Karlan is without a doubt the single most qualified human being for this job

with Kathleen Sullivan coming in a close second.

He will pick neither.

[jefferson_dem]

14. What, exactly, makes these two the most qualified, in your opinion?

Their professional credentials are good but nothing jumps out and screams "i'm the most qualified to be the next Justice on the SCOTUS." Neither Karlan nor Sullivan has even been a judge or argued before the Court. That's not to say they would not make excellent nomnees based on factors other than professional qualifications.

[bornskeptic]

22. Sullivan has argued five cases before the Supreme Court,

and many cases before Federal appeals courts qand state supreme courts. She is also the author of the leading casebook on Constitutional law. I don't think anybody can be called the most qualified candidate, but I don't see how anyone could be claimed to be more qualified than Kathleen Sullivan.

http://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/sullivan-kathleen-m.aspx

[ruggerson]

23. that's one of the very reasons they are qualified

because they are academics, something the Court has been lacking for decades. Being an appeals court judge did not used to be a prerequisite for the Supreme Court. Senators, Governors, cabinet members, brilliant legal scholars - all were routinely considered. I would guess that we would agree that Earl Warren was a seminally important Chief Justice who presided over a court that pulled America grudgingly along the road to a far more equal and just society. He was never a judge prior to his service as Chief Justice.

The key for me is legal brilliance along with potential judicial temperament and a history that suggests that a nominee would be independent of both corporate and governmental interests.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/directory/profile/32/

"A productive scholar and award-winning teacher, Pamela S. Karlan is also the founding director of the school’s extraordinarily successful Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, where students litigate live cases before the Court.' One of the nation’s leading experts on voting and the political process, she has served as a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission and an assistant counsel and cooperating attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Professor Karlan is the co-author of three leading casebooks on constitutional law and related subjects, as well as more than four dozen scholarly articles."

She has argued cases before the SC. As a clerk to Blackmun, she actually WROTE his dissent in Bowers V Hardwick, a dissent that has become one of the most famous in USSC history. Blackmun himself acknowledged her authorship and history has proven her both prescient and correct.

Kathleen Sullivan is just as brilliant a legal mind as Karlan. She has written extensively on constitutional law and has also argued both before appellate courts and the USSC. She authored the country's leading casebook on constitutional law and is arguably a far greater constitutional scholar than most appellate Judges.

I would like to see Obama appoint someone who is both brilliant and a constitutional scholar, someone who can go toe to toe with Scalia and knock him senseless.

The fact that they are both gay women is irrelevant (though not to the Republicans). And in the short run, it adds to their appeal: why should only heterosexual Justices be deciding matters of great import to tens of millions of gay citizens? Does that population, at long last, not deserve their one-in-nine seat at the table?

[ruggerson]

24. And btw, BOTH Sullivan and Karlan have argued cases before the SC

n/t

[jefferson_dem]

26. I stand corrected on that point.

n/t

[vaberella]

28. Thanks Ruggerson, I'll read up on them. ^_^ n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

19. If you think Obama is going to appoint a liberal judge

you haven't been paying attention. He will appoint a middle of the road moderate.

[backscatter712]

25. One thing I like about Obama's decision-making process...

is that ideology is but one of the factors at play. Sure, he wants a left-moderate judge, probably won't pick a hard-leftist judge, and certainly won't pick a strict constitutionalist assclown like Alito or Roberts.

But Obama also uses his constitutional law knowledge, and picks the judge with the best professional qualifications - experience, skill at writing decisions, interpreting the Constitution in non-insane ways, that sort of thing.

That sort of decision-making process got us Justice Sotomayor, who has absolutely impressed me. I hope Obama gets the SCOTUS another justice like her.

[vaberella]

29. Probably, but he stated clearly someone in like mind to Stevens.

I used progressive, not liberal. I see liberal as more along party lines. I used Progressive because I'm speaking of someone with a broad mind and who addresses the issues fairly. I'm not speaking of party politics here or personal inclination.

[cali]

32. Actually, it's you who evidently haven't been paying attention.

He'll appoint someone who will vote reliably with the liberal block.

[ruggerson]

35. We need more than that

we need a brilliant mind who can appeal to Kennedy's intellectual curiosity.

Right now, and for the forseeable future, this is Anthony Kennedy's court. On split decisions, he is the deciding vote. From everything I've read about him, he actually listens and processes the other Justice's arguments, although obviously he is far, far more conservative than most of us would like. What we need is someone who can make such a compelling, smart case in these situations that Kennedy will actually listen, process and understand.

We don't need just a reliable liberal vote. We need a brilliant, compelling jurist.

[cali]

37. I doubt very much that Obama will choose someone who doesn't have

a lot of intellectual fire power.

I agree that Kennedy will have increased power.

[ruggerson]

38. the two with the most intellectual firepower

are Sullivan and Karlan, imho.

You can't get much better than the one who actually wrote the casebook on constitutional law or one who wrote one of the most famous dissents in American history when she was but a clerk.

The fact that they are gay woman is merely icing on the cake. In the best possible world, the Court should have more women and it should have a non-heterosexual. There is something morally untenable about a bunch of straight men having the last word on a woman's reproductive rights.

[Jennicut]

41. Kennedy is more conservative then O'Connor ever was and never wanted to be seen

as the swing vote. I don't think he will be persuaded by anyone on the left if he has certain beliefs. He has voted more with the conservatives on the court then the liberals. I don't think the court will change much in the time being. Not until Scalia or Kennedy is gone. They are 74 and 73, the next oldest after Ginsburg. She is next, with not so great health and being 77.

[scheming daemons]

36. Um... Sotomayer? Some of you people are ridiculous

She's a liberal judge. She's not a middle-of-the-road moderate.


It's YOU who haven't paid attention.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

40. You obvously bought into the right wing meme that Sotomayor is an ultra liberal judge

But if you look at her record, you will see that she is not.

A liberal record — but not entirely

WASHINGTON - In more than 16 years as a federal judge, Sonia Sotomayor has often sided with people claiming discrimination in education and employment. She's backed police and prosecutors over defendants. She's upheld assertions of free speech and religion.

Not easily pigeonholed, Sotomayor has also been part of rulings that go the other way.

In general, her rulings as a trial judge for six years and then as an appeals court judge since 1998 are in line with the liberal-leaning views of Justice David Souter, the man President Barack Obama has nominated her to replace.


Sotomayor's record indicates that her confirmation would not seriously alter the balance of power on a court that often splits along conservative and liberal lines on social issues.

Among the most contentious of those issues is abortion, but Sotomayor has not been part of any major rulings on abortion rights. In 2002, she wrote an opinion ruling against an abortion rights group that had challenged a government policy prohibiting foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions.

In her opinion on the so-called gag rule, Sotomayor wrote that the government was free to favor the anti-abortion position when public funds were involved. President Barack Obama lifted the rule soon after he took office in January.

Abortion opponents reacted strongly against Sotomayor's nomination Tuesday. Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, called Sotomayor "a radical pick that divides America."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30948636/

[Supersedeas]

51. her most recent decision was a dessent from a Justice Stevens ruling

where she refused to extend federal protections to decisions made by state officials.

Sotomayor is far from liberal.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mkultra]

43. I dont much care

I elected Obama to pick a good candidate and now im going to let him do his job. And a fine job he is doing thanks.

[Fire1]

45. [phone]!

[vaberella]

50. Phooey on you...this is just for fun. n/t

[quiller4]

46. Sheldon Whitehouse-Senators would be reluctant to block

one of their own. His record is more progressive than most of the top names floated. Besides, justices with some experience in elective office have tended to be better at crafting coalitions for their opinions. Brennan and Warren would be two examples of effection coalition builders who held elective office prior to being named to the court.

[retread]

49. My favorite from last year remains my favorite this year--Leah Ward Sears.

http://weeseeyou.com/2010/04/07/for-your-consideration-mr-president-leah-ward-sears-for-the-u-s-supreme-court/