Obama May Get to Appoint Two Supreme Court Judges

Yahoo News ^ | November 6, 2008 | Lucile Malandain Lucile Malandain

[Clintonfatigued]

President-elect Barack Obama may have the rare chance to appoint two judges to the Supreme Court, giving the former law professor an opportunity to make a further lasting mark on American society.

Already observers are weighing in on what Obama could do in the key decision on replacements for the highest court in the land.

"It is quite likely he would choose a woman or a minority," said Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Columbia University in New York.

"If he could find a Hispanic woman, that would be ideal, the best choice," he added.

Only two women have served on the Supreme Court, and two African-Americans have succeeded one another in the same seat, but never has an judge with a Latino background been appointed.

Hispanics are an ever-growing demographic in the United States, making up 15 percent of the population.

But beyond the race or sex of the candidate, observers are gearing up for appointments of politically progressive judges to the bench to replace the older liberals sitting on it today.

John Paul Stevens, appointed by president Gerald Ford, is 88 years old, and is expected to resign soon.

The nine justices are appointed for life.

Widely considered to be on the liberal side of the court, Stevens' replacement with another liberal would maintain the bench's fragile balance.

Currently four conservatives, four liberals, with the moderate Anthony Kennedy holding the middle ground, compose a balance Obama is expected to sustain.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, appointed by president Bill Clinton, is another liberal lifer also expected to resign within Obama's first term in office.

During Obama's campaign the Democrat hinted at what he expected of his appointees, and certainly could surprise conservative commentators expecting him to name someone more radical to the post.

[Impy]

Aside from Roe was Byron White really a decent Justice?

[hunter112]

Either a moderate, or a really old liberal. We need to bork his nominees like crazy.

I'd be surprised if there were any intended resignations announced very soon. Justices almost always make such moves after the term of the Court is up, in July. Besides, the libs that would want to retire know that Barry's up to his ass in alligators right now, they'd rather see him enact his socialist legislation before having to deal with a SCOTUS nominee sideshow.

Perhaps by July or August, he will not have been able to deliver as much pie as is needed to keep his base 100% happy with him. We know how to play games better than they do, even while in the minority.

[Impy]

It’s gonna be tough with 43 Republicans. (or 42 pending attempted theft in Minnesota). Gotta get the RINOs on board with a filibuster and maybe dem Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

[hunter112]

We may be able to get a few Rats on our side, as well.

What if Jim Webb got a LOT of heat from people in Virginia? Yeah, I know that state went Rat last week, but that was because of gimmie-gimmies who were voting for their messiah. They sure aren't going to write letters in support of a white liberal.

There are a bunch of Rats out there in similar circumstances, many are coming up for their first re-election bid in 2010. They can swat down the first nominee that Zero tosses up, which shows some 'independence' from him if they need to have that by then.

[BillyBoy]

He wasn't a staunch hard core conservative like Scalia, but he certainly ended up siding with conservatives the majority of the time and ticked off the liberals who pushed Kennedy to appoint him. They were hoping for a Louis Brandeis type judge. White occassionally voted with the liberal bloc on issues like "voting rights" for criminals and people who don't speak English, but overall he was on the right side of the political spectrum. Here's some background info on him:

Despite being appointed by Democrat John F. Kennedy, White had a mind of his own and opposed the theory of "substantive due process" which the Court used to justify all manner of judge-made social policies not anchored in the Constitution. White was a consistent, if independent, member of an increasingly conservative majority. A hard-liner on law-and-order, White often spoke for the court in decisions enhancing police authority.The opinion illustrated the unshakeable conservatism of White's jurisprudence, and his belief that the court should confine itself to a narrow legal function, without, as he once wrote, imposing "its own extra-constitutional value preferences". Such views were less common in the 1960s and much of the 1970s. Since the 1980s, they have been the prevailing orthodoxy. His jurisprudence has sometimes been praised for adhering to the doctrine of judicial restraint.

He often parted company with the Court's liberal wing on questions of affirmative action and minority set-aside programs. He voted to strike down an affirmative action plan regarding state contracts in Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989). On personal liberty issues, White was more likely to cast a conservative vote. He supported restrictions on pornographic materials, rejected special rights for reporters, approved sanctions against flag burners, and voted for greater accommodation between church and state. Although White recognized a constitutional right to privacy in 1965, he consistently voted to sustain state restrictions on abortions. Additionally, White wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) upholding state sodomy laws against privacy right challenges. Justice White's most consistently conservative rulings occurred in criminal rights cases. He dissented from the Court's liberal rulings in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and supported the validity of capital punishment laws. He was a critic of the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases and authored the 1984 majority opinions limiting that rule.

He was seen as a disappointment by some Kennedy supporters who wished he would have joined the more liberal wing of the court in its opinions.White said that he was most comfortable on Rehnquist's court; he once said of Earl Warren, "I wasn't exactly in his circle."

In this October 8, 1978 letter on Supreme Court letterhead, Justice Byron White acknowledges receipt of "the word from Calvin Coolidge" from Carl L. Shipley of Washington, D.C. Byron White was appointed to the Supreme Court by President John F. Kennedy after a career as a famous football star and Deputy Attorney General under Robert Kennedy. Calvin Coolidge was a considerably more conservative President than JFK who was known for his terse witticisms and one of those was probably what he received from Shipley.

Shipley, the person Justice White wrote this letter to, was a well known District lawyer, Republican delegate to Republican National Convention in 1960 and 1964 and Republican chairman for the District from 1958 to 1968. As the Washington Post noted in his obituary, Mr. Shipley tended to shoot from the hip at times, making politically incorrect comments such as this made in 1967 in regard to some residents of Washington, D.C.: "There are people who just won't work, and we should get rid of them so they won't be standing around on corners and holding up liquor stores." In any case, Justice White who clearly knew Mr. Shipley's reputation didn't mind corresponding with this conservative and controversial lawyer as shown by this 1978 letter.

Justice Antonin Scalia described White'sbone-crushing handshake as a metaphor for a forceful personality."If there is one adjective that never could, never would, be applied to Byron White, it is wishy-washy," Scalia said. "You always knew where hestood, that he was not likely to be moved, and hoped that he was lining up on your side of scrimmage."

[BillyBoy]

>> So now, let's look at J. P. Stevens. He was appointed by a Republican - Nixon. This means that following the honorable old tradition would require him to attempt to retire during a GOP Presidency. He's had that chance for the past 8 years. What do you think are the odds that he either plans to retire in the next 2 months, or to outlast the upcoming Democrat reign? <<

When Nixon won the '68 Presidential election, "Republican" Justice Earl Warren did the opposite and quickly submitted his resignation so the lame duck Democrat President (Lyndon Johnson) would be able to replace him with another activist liberal. Johnson attempted to do an 11th hour elevation of Abe Fortes from Associate Justice to Chief Justice and it didn't work. Fortes came off as arrogant and trying to seize power, and the Republican minority just held up the nomination until Nixon could be sworn in and appoint his own guy.

IF John Paul Stevens decided to resign at this time so a Republican President would name his replacement (won't happen since Stevens is a lib), the same scenario would probably unfold. Bush would attempt to name a conservative, and the Dems would drag their feet for two monthes and hold up the appointment until Obama can be sworn in and name his own judge.

[Impy]

Virginia is went rat because of Northen Virginia or “Baja Maryland” as some call it. It started before this year. The state is an unlikely source of “heat” on the issue of judges and Webb would not be likely to respond to it anyway.

Aside from Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Landrieu as well as Pryor and Lincoln from Arkansas are likely targets on the issue of the court.

Also senile Bob Byrd claims to be for constructionist judges. He voted for Alito.

[Impy]

Thank you for the 411.

I don’t think the Obama’s slick corp of legal advisers would let a White-type slip though.

[hunter112]

Also senile Bob Byrd claims to be for constructionist judges. He voted for Alito.

So did Cantwell, from Washington. I'll admit, that was when she had a potentially tough re-election fight on her hands, but there is still an Eastern Washington out there that might put pressure. In any case, if a nominee can be shown to be radical, we'll make sure to get the word out there. The MSM cannot filter it anymore.

I still think that even in the very bluest of states, there are people that can get fired up to oppose ultraliberal judges. It's not like an election, where it's an 'either or' situation, it's an up and down yes and no vote. Liberals have already shown that you don't have to have a reason besides ideology to vote no on a judicial nominee, hopefully Republicans and a few Rats from states with motivated country folk will get that message.

[Fresh Wind]

President-elect Barack Obama may have the rare chance to appoint two judges to the Supreme Court...

Didn't Bush do this?

"If he could find a Hispanic woman, that would be ideal, the best choice," he added.

Oh, wonderful. The One could prove himself to be a racist and a sexist at the same time.

[Impy]

“I still think that even in the very bluest of states, there are people that can get fired up to oppose ultraliberal judges. “

Very few voters actually call themselves “liberal”.

It’s only 32% in Vermont.

[RonPaulpeil]

And even fewer call themselves “conservative”.

[Impy]

You signed up to make that reply to a month old post?

Odd.

Anyway you are right if we are talking about Vermont. In VT it’s moderate in first place, conservative in last.

You are very wrong if you are talking about nationwide. Liberal is third behind moderate. Conservative is first.

[Fred]

Barack Hussein Al-Jimmy Carter Obama could appoint Michelle Obama, she is an attorney...

[this is my country]

We need a miracle to stop this from happening.

[Clintonfatigued]

So far, Obama has played it cautiously, no grand schemes. He even let Nancy Pelosi take the lead on the stimulous package. He seems to be more interested in his poll ratings than policy accomplishments.

This leads me to believe he’ll be cautious in SCOTUS appointments. I expect he’ll choose on the basis of confirmability and lack of controversy. Not that he’ll choose Constitutionalists. But I think he’ll avoid the most outrageous wackos.