Democrats Divide on Voice of Possible Top-Court Pick

[Lasher]

The Wall Street Journal
February 8, 2010
By Jess Bravin

WASHINGTON—Democrats gearing up for a possible Supreme Court vacancy are divided over whether President Barack Obama should appoint a prominent liberal voice while their party still commands a large Senate majority, or go with someone less likely to stoke Republican opposition.

<snip>

"Sotomayor fits further into the problem of lacking any powerful liberal voice," said University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, a friend and former faculty colleague of Mr. Obama. Like many liberal academics, Prof. Stone considers Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer as relative moderates who don't articulate a robust philosophical alternative to the court's aggressive conservatives, Justice Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Without trailblazing liberals like the late Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall on the bench, "the court is getting this completely skewed internal debate about how to think about constitutional law," Prof. Stone said. That's bad for the court and bad for the nation."

Other allies of the president say picking a "Scalia of the left" would be a mistake. A candidate with a sharp liberal record "is such an attractive target for a fight, it could screw up the whole summer," tying up the Senate and further handicapping the Democrats' agenda, said a Democrat familiar with the White House's thinking on judicial nominees.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703894304575047603606503576.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_PoliticsNCampaign_4

Holy shit, even the WSJ recognizes the need to nominate a strong liberal to serve on the SCOTUS. I couldn't agree more but I believe the Great Conciliator will try to make everybody happy as he has been wont to do.

[polichick]

1. I would sure like the prez to step up to this task, instead of choosing...

...someone who doesn't *gasp* offend the other side.

Truthfully though, I can't see him choosing a true blue liberal - and that's what we really need.

[lob1]

2. We need a real liberal, not another corporatist.

[Vincardog]

3. Fuck the corporatist we have to nominate a young STRONG LIBERAL.

[niyad]

4. goddess forfend that we should upset the repukes

[Enrique]

5. go with a strong liberal, just to see what Joe Lieberman, et al do.

watch the spectacle of the entire remaining Gang of 14 filibuster a judicial nominee.

For connoisseurs of hypocrisy, it will be a feast. :toast:

[Lasher]

7. That was exactly what I was thinking.

I would employ the nuclear option. You damn sure I would.

[RDANGELO]

6. Play the Republicans game.

Send up a real liberal who doesn't have much of a decipherable voting record and pretends to be a moderate.

[T Wolf]

8. If Obama sends up another center-right collaborator, he will drive another % of liberals

away from supporting him.

I guess it will come down to his calculating who to write off with this move - Democrats or the great undecided morons who sway with the wind.

The pukes will fight whomever he nominates, whether it is Fidel Castro or Sarah Palin. Count on it.

[polichick]

9. What the prez doesn't seem to get is that the "great undecided morons" will...

...go with the team that is perceived as winning - so by caving to the right, he'd look like the loser he would be and they'll go with the winners.

[T Wolf]

10. Uh huh. But people have been telling them this truth for a long time. Yet, they

REFUSE to learn the lesson.

That is why the only way to get their attention is to cut them off. From our dollars. From our "work" during election season. From our votes.

Until now, they have no reason to take us seriously because most of us fall back in line when Novembers roll around.

No more.

Starve the beast.

[polichick]

11. True enough - after 30+ years of working for and donating to the party...

...I'm done with that - and tell them so every time they call.

[T Wolf]

12. I kinda feel sorry for those enthusiastic young people who still get suckered into working

for "the party" - all the while not knowing the true goals of their "leaders."

For that reason, I try and calmly explain when they call exactly what so many of us have been saying. They seem genuinely surprised that "loyal Democrats" can turn our backs on the party.

My wife, on the other hand, is completely fed up with the party and the professional pols. Even though I am far lefter than she, she is brutally honest and rude and angry at the calls. I try to get to them, but sometimes they "get" to hear her wrath.

Probably not a bad thing.

[polichick]

13. I hope young people won't give up though - we need them if this country...

...will ever see a truly progressive president and finally reach its potential.

If progressives have lost the Democratic party to corporate fucks, then a new party is essential.

[NorthCarolina]

16. Sadly, I suspect they will get by just fine on Corporate Donations alone. eom

[customerserviceguy]

14. The President expended a fair amount of political capital

on Sotomayor, I remember all too well the drubbing she took as a "quota queen". And that was when President Obama's popularity numbers were still quite high.

I'd be very surprised if he appointed a strong progressive to the Court. Besides, who would really stick out as such? Other than an elected official who is possibly endangered in the fall, who in the Federal court system would really satisfy the most progressive of us here?

[Lasher]

17. Right, and the magnanimous GOP grudgingly allowed us to seat Sotomayor, who is distinctly a centrist

And in private, Republicans did high-fives all around. It's time to seat a distinct liberal to start in a very small way to counter the four extreme rightwing partisans who dominate the SCOTUS. It's way past time to draw a line in the sand. But know what? It's just not going to happen.

[NorthCarolina]

15. Obama is not a Liberal, he is a self declared New Dem (=DLC), so why would

anyone believe he would select a solid Liberal Judge? I think it likely that the Corporatists will reach a new milestone in their control of government with the next Supreme Court nomination. His right hand man, Rahm, gives a clear indication of this through his open contempt of Liberals. Hopefully, the Prop 8 issue will reach the SCOTUS before any further changes in the makeup of the court ensue.

[8 track mind]

18. Who would be vacating a seat?

one of the conservatives i hope.

[struggle4progress]

20. Justice Stevens looks ready to stand down

[Lasher]

21. From the linked article:

The court's longest-serving member, Justice John Paul Stevens, has suggested that he may retire at the current term's end in June, when he will be 90 years old.

The second-eldest justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 76, has said she hopes to emulate her judicial idol, Justice Louis Brandeis, who retired at 83. But Justice Ginsburg's health issues—she was treated last year for pancreatic cancer—have made preparations for her retirement prudent, officials said.

[Doctor_J]

19. By all means, let's make sure the party of Palin & Bachmann is appeased

Obama = Chamberlain