Posted on 05/05/2009 8:23:08 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
(CNSNews.com) – Judge Diane Wood, reported to be on President Obama’s short list of possible nominees to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, believes a judge's interpretation of what the Constitution means must "grow with the times."
In a 2005 article she wrote for the New York University Law Review, Wood argued that the U.S. Constitution “survives” the test of time through the “evolving” interpretation of its text.
“Over the long run, even though it can sometimes be frustrating to wait for the long run, it has been better to allow constitutional understandings to grow with the times,” she wrote. “Our eighteenth-century Constitution, while a bit cryptic at the edges, is nonetheless a real treasure.”
Wood has been a federal judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago since President Clinton appointed her to the position in 1995. The court handles federal case appeals for the district court of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
In 2002, in the case, A Woman's Choice-East Side Women's Clinic v. Newman, she dissented against a majority court opinion that required women in Indiana to receive in-person consultation from an abortion doctor 18 hours before having an abortion.
While the 2-1 majority speculated that such a requirement might dissuade women from seeking abortions by adding a step to the process, Wood argued that this would present the women with an undue burden.
“(T)he law's requirement that women receive certain advice ‘in the presence’ of ‘the physician who is to perform the abortion, the referring physician or a physician assistant’ (§ 16-34-2-1.1(1)) amounts to an unconstitutional ‘undue burden’ on the abortion decision,” she wrote.
One year before that she wrote the court’s opinion in a case that held that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could regulate northern Illinois waters used as a habitat by migratory birds so that the area could not be used for landfill. The Supreme Court later reversed the decision.
Following her 1975 graduation from the University of Texas law school, Wood clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who in 1973 had authored the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion on demand in the United States.
President Obama has long-standing ties to Wood. For 12 years, Wood and Obama were colleagues on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School. Obama left the law school in 2004. Wood is still a senior lecturer there.
Although she said during a speech at the Southern Methodist University that a federal judge is sometimes “‘a mile wide and an inch deep’ when it comes to legal expertise--jack of all trades but master of none,” Wood is a specialist in antitrust law. She is the author of several books about trade regulation and competition law.
Prior to taking the bench, she worked on investment and antitrust issues as a legal counsel in the State Department and performed commercial litigation for a corporate law firm in Washington, D.C., before becoming a professor.
After becoming a law professor at Chicago, Wood served as advisor for a committee that formulated the first comprehensive sexual harassment policy for the university.
She is currently a member of the American Law Institute and an associate member of the International Academy of Comparative Law.
After Justice David Souter announced his retirement from the Supreme Court last Friday, Wood’s name emerged on the short list of candidates to take his seat.
When someone tells you that the Constitution is a “living document” what they are really saying is that the Constitution is dead.
About what we expect from this Administration. Garbage.
Isn't that what happened in (& TO) 1930s Germany?
God help us! As we slink towards a [slightly] Americanized version of totalitarian fascism (in the economic sense, not how liberals toss it about so freely - although that might not be far from accurate), one has to wonder if the esteemed judge will interpret hate speech, abortion, etc. laws with the same “evolutionary” approach and encourage her successors to do likewise - even if she disagrees with the direction in which they evolve. Rhetorical question, of course; Thomas and Scalia will continue to be villified, as will their orginalist successors - if there are any...
Good lord! It’s like BO is putting the country through a paper shredder. “Living breathing constitutions” only serve those in higher places. They’ll amend on a daily basis. If Texas cuts off from the US, I’m there.
Oh boy, another Chicago thug in Washington.
yes....legislate from the bench.
Where in the Constitution does it say that we are a dictatorship of five judges?
Michael Steele is the frontrunner?!
Freegards
Hide the guns.....
Correct, the NY and Los Angeles Times.
Is she married or has she been married?
Is she a mother?
Or is she something else?
Rejected!
To be succinct,
SHE IS A LYING W**RE :
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
James Madison
IOW, she's more loony than any member of the current court.
If you hide them, you can’t use them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.