Posted on 04/22/2010 8:23:53 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) wants President Obama’s next court appointee to move the court in a different direction.
“We have right now a very, very activist, conservative activist, Supreme Court,” Leahy told reporters after a meeting of Senate leaders with President Obama Wednesday regarding the upcoming Supreme Court nomination to fill the vacancy of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
“I think this does not reflect the American people but reflects more of a partisan agenda. I would hope that the president's nominee can get us back away from that.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), were all in attendance.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs would not state whether he agreed with Leahy’s assessment of the current court.
“You’ve heard the president talk about what he will look for in a nominee. I have not spoken to the president since the meeting broke up,” Gibbs said. “He is looking for somebody who has fidelity to the law, someone who is independent and somebody who has the legal stature necessary. All of those things the president said in the next couple of weeks he will look for in announcing a nominee.”
Those on Obama’s list reportedly include federal appeals court Judges Diane Wood, Merrick Garland and Sidney Thomas; former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears; U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan; Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm; Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and the dean of Harvard Law School, Martha Minow.
The list of possible nominees has been reportedly expanding. Gibbs said Wednesday that there has been vetting but no winnowing.
“The president has said as we look for a nominee now, we will look for someone who understands how law affects real people in the real world -- not just in a class room or not just in a school. Some are judges. Some are not. I think the president will have an opportunity to look through and select from a broad depth of experience.”
In a joint statement, McConnell and Sessions promised to scrutinize Obama’s nominee.
“Judges must apply the Constitution and laws even-handedly,” the Republican joint statement said. “They should not enter the courtroom with preconceived outcomes in mind, or work to arrive at the preferred result of any President or political party. A Supreme Court justice must not be a rubberstamp or policy arm for any Administration. As we did with Justice Sotomayor, we will treat the President’s nominee fairly. But a lifetime position on the nation’s highest court requires a thorough process, not a rush to judgment.”
The president said earlier that day he would not impose a litmus test on a nominee on abortion.
“I don't have litmus tests around any of these issues,” Obama said. “But I will say that I want somebody who will be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights. And that includes women's rights.”
Can anyone tell me why this knuckle dragger is still in office?
It's supposed to reflect people who understand the US Constitution... you frikin' asshat!
That’s not really possible. Stevens was a hardline left-wing vote. The Court will either stay where it was, or move toward the center by replacing Stevens.
SnakeDoc
Obama can’t find anyone further to the left than Stevens.
since this is a family site, I would only urge Patrick to do what Dick Cheney suggested several years ago.
“conservative activist, Supreme Court,”
A contradiction in terms, Leahy. Now go Biden yourself.
This is a great example of how the radical left sees the function of the judiciary. A POLITIAL BODY. Certainly not as an unbiased servant of the written law. Why, such a concept would be radically to the right!!! Extremists!!!!
Stevens has morphed into an orthodox liberal voice on the court. But, he's not the Justice furthest to the left as witnessed in his opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. That was the case that allowed states to ask for photo IDs when people were voting.
Make no doubt, Stevens is a reliable vote for the left, but there are the occasional (and to rare) issues where he'll side with the conservatives. Whomever Obama chooses, you can be sure will be absent that "infirmity".
if they give out an award for “Obvious Headline of the Year”, I think we have a winner here
>> Whomever Obama chooses, you can be sure will be absent that “infirmity”.
It is more difficult than you might imagine to predict exactly where a new justice will vote. Obama may try ... whether he will succeed is a different question.
SnakeDoc
LOL. The only way a new appointee could move the SC further to the left would be if he/she had an actual intellectual and/or legal argument in favor of the left’s positions. Since none of these exist, I guess the new justice will have to settle for the headlock on Kennedy.
For whatever reason, that axiom only seems to apply to Republican appointees that last 40 or so years. Every Dem appointee has delivered for their team, in spades - Marshall, Breyer, Ginsburg, were plainly predictable in their behavior, and Sotomayer doesn't appear to be any different.
But, Republicans have nominated loose cannon after loose cannon - O'Conner, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Burger, Powell - hell, Blackmum actually authored the majority opinion in Roe.
Considering the balance of the court, it's very hard to believe that Democrats have only nominated three justices - Ruth Buzzie, Breyer and Sotomoyer since 1966 or 1967 (the year they nominated Marshall). All the other justices came from Republican appointees.
Not only should Roe have been overturned by now, but it really should never been established in the first place considering the Presidents who actually appointed justices to that Court.
It's time the Republicans got some kahunas blocked any leftist being approved to SCOTUS.
Because he is from Vermont and the populace would probably vote for Castro if he were running.
Like Obama would do anything else?
So Leahy desiring a shift to the left on the SC is NOT a partisan agenda????
What assh0le hypocrites these people are. If the court really reflected this country we’d have 5 conservatives, 2 moderate conservatives and two liberals on it.
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.