Supreme Court: 'The diversity criteria': The Swamp
The Swamp
Chicago Tribune
Posted May 5, 2009 2:26 PM
The Swamp

by Mark Silva

Anyone seriously interested in filling the imminent opening on the Supreme Court is probably loathe to get on too many publicly discussed lists, but our friend and colleague Jan Crawford Greenburg and the crew at ABC News have compiled an Obama court-pick "short list'' worth seeing both for its names and its handicapping.

There is federal appellate judge Sonio Sotomayor, one of the candidates who could meet two high-value criteria for President Barack Obama's first court appointment: Both female and Hispanic. "She has an inspiring life story, having grown up in housing projects and going on to graduate from Princeton University and Yale Law School,'' ABC's vetting says. But then there is the "so-far anonymous campaign'' against her "less than cordial relationship with some colleagues on the bench and.... abrasive personality. ''

There is Elena Kagan, Obama's own solicitor general at the Justice Department, Harvard Law grad and clerk for Thurgood Marshall. "She is an intellectual heavyweight,'' while critics say "she has no real experience in the court room, having served mainly in academic and policy-making positions.''

There is Diane Wood, a 7th Circuit federal appellate judge in Chicago, who has "life experience and a sterling resume, including service as a federal appeals court judge, work in private practice, time spent as a professor and positions in the U.S. government,'' but critics warn of an opinion she wrote "applying RICO -- a statute designed for mob prosecutions -- to prevent pro life activists from engaging in protests.''

There is Jennifer Granholm, governor of Michigan, another Harvard Law grad and former federal prosecutor, Michigan's first female attorney general. " Her varied experience would serve her well,'' though "she has no experience on the bench.'' She once appearing on The Dating Game.

There is Leah Ward Sears, chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, the first African American woman to become a chief justice in the country, first black woman to sit in the federal judiciary and first woman to serve on Georgia's Supreme Court. "She has a flaw on her record,'' ABC News notes. "Sears was fined for violating campaign contribution laws during her 2004 re-election effort.... She paid $3,100 in fines but the mark on her record could be a problem during the vetting process.''

There is Kim McLane Wardlaw, federal appellate judge in the 9th Circuit, a graduate of UCLA Law School. She, too, could become the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. She has political experience, in the campaigns of Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former President Bill Clinton, but also sits on a court that ruled, in a controversial case currently before the Supreme Court, that Arizona middle school officials violated a student's rights by strip-searching her on suspicion of using prescription strength ibuprofen.

There is Nargaret McKeown, another member of the 9th Circuit appellate court, a Georgetown Law graduate who has worked in business as well, representing corporate clients such as Boeing. She also wrote "a controversial opinion in 2007 that was seen as deferring to the Bush Administration in a lawsuit by an Islamic charity claiming it was illegally wiretapped. ''

There is Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts, Harvard Law grad and first African-American governor of Massachusetts. He too worked in business, for Coca Cola, and has argued before the Supreme Court, winning a voting rights case in 1997 as head of the Civil Rights Division. He caught some flak for upgrading his state car from a Ford to a Cadillac, has been "criticized for taking a position on the board of the now-defunct Ameriquest Capital Corp., a mortgage company accused of predatory lending practices,'' and is having some problems in the opinion polls lately.

There is Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School and head of Obama's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Another onetime clerk for Thurgood Marshall, he is considered a leading legal scholar. "He would be a judicial rock star on the court who could easily go toe-to-toe with Roberts and Scalia and leave a lasting legacy for Obama,'' writes the ABC team with Greenburg, who first predicted and then broke the story about the appointment of Roberts as chief justice during her time at the Chicago Tribune. But "as a white man from the rarefied world of academia -- who graduated from and taught at elite educational institutions -- he flunks the "diversity" criteria. ''

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

I want an unapologetic liberal who does not buy into the conservative jurisprudence crap that we've seen over the past few years (pro corporate, anti-consumer, narrow interpretation of equal protection, worshiping process) over substance.


I love the way the conservative press has been attacking Sotomayer as "abrasive." You want abrasive? Try Antonin Scalia!


In other words....NO WHITE MALES NEED APPLY!!!!


Teabagger Joe,
I agree, the poor little white guys are always getting overlooked in this country.


Out of 9 Justices there are ONLY 7 white guys!
.
http://lawyersusaonline.com/dcdicta/files/2007/12/supremes.jpg


It's not fair! I want all of the Justices to be angry old white guys!



Hey Grand Dragon....race should never matter!!!!


Hey Grand Dragon....race should never matter!!!!

Posted by: Joe | May 5, 2009 8:40 PM
*********


Yeah, and you're the only one on here who is saying: "white guys need noy apply".


Try again, Joe the Teabagger.



Mr. Silva, that should be "loath" in the second line.

Loathe: Verb; Dislike extremely

Loath: Adjective; Reluctant


Sonia is reportedly diabetic.

So maybe she does get crabby when the blood sugar gets out of control.

Ya gotta problem with that?

Well I gotta a problem with excluding white men from consideration.

They should be upset. In particular the wasps because Souter and Stevens are the last wasps and now there will only be one.

And Stevens will probably retire soon.

Then : no wasps.

Plus, name ONE opinion by name or by facts that either of the women on the Supreme Court has written in their entire tenure.

I dare you.

Just name one memorable case written by o'connor or Ruthie.....

See.

You can't. What does that tell you about the "special perspective" argument for placing women on a court regardless of their qualifications or lack of same.

Just like my hero GHW Bush saying Clarence Thomas was "most qualified" person to appoint.

Even I get a yuk out of that bald faced lie.

You can count on the fingers of both hands the number of questions he has asked during oral argument, not this past year, but in his ENTIRE career!

The perfect "go along" judge to be guided by the nose by Scalia..

Good work, George.


* * * * *
Plus, name ONE opinion by name or by facts that either of the women on the Supreme Court has written in their entire tenure.
.
I dare you.
* * * * * *
Posted by: Milton Friedman | May 6, 2009 8:45 AM
.
Okay, you're on.
.
Ginsburg wrote the majority opinions in Florida v. J.L. and Cunningham v. California.
.
O'Connor wrote the majority opinions in Idaho v. Wright and New York v. United States.
.
That's two majority opinions apiece, and that was just off the top of my head. All of the aforementioned cases involve important issues of Constitutional law. I also know for a fact that both have written many, many more majority opinions for the USSC.
.
So, you were saying?
.
Oh, and with regard to Justice Thomas: I wouldn't judge his work on the basis of how many questions he asks in oral argument. Participation in oral argument is the least part of his job. By the time oral argument rolls around in a case, the Justices have pretty much have their mind made up as to which way they are voting. Oral argument has no effect unless one or more of them are still sitting on the fence.
.
Justice Thomas has already indicated why he doesn’t ask a lot of questions, and his reasoning makes perfect sense. He wants to allow the parties to have their say, and to hear what they have to say. It’s pretty hard to hear what someone is saying if you are constantly thinking about what questions to ask. So, Justice Thomas waits until the end to ask questions, and then he only asks questions that haven’t already been asked and answered by other Justices and counsel.
.
Really, if you want to judge a jurist’s work, it’s best to judge on his or her output - i.e. the way he or she votes, and the reasons given in his or her opinions. I dare YOU to cite one instance of an opinion written by Justice Thomas that was poorly written or reasoned.


PS. It is inaccurate to claim that Thomas always votes the same as Scalia, and by his lead. Go read Gonzales v. Raich. Scalia concurred in the majority ruling, written by Stevens, that federal interstate commerce power to regulate drugs trumped state medical marijuana laws. Thomas O’Connor and Rehnquist all dissented.


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "o" in the field below:

Barack Obama
Want to see more photos? Click here

Play "Budget Hero"

Play Budget Hero

Latest polls

News, but funnier

Cartoon

Walt Handelsman

Cartoon

The Lowe- Down

Cartoon

Joe Fournier

Cartoon

Editorial cartoons

Quizzes

Rahm Emanuel

Know the real Rahm?

McCain

Presidential trivia