What We Know About Obama's Supreme Court Philosophy

Many have speculated that President Obama will be looking for a minority or female to replace the outgoing Supreme Court Justice David Souter. A top candidate is Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge from New York.

Obama didn't provide any new clues to his nomination plans with his statement during a surprise visit to the White House briefing room on Friday:

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book," Obama said. "It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."

Obama has made similar remarks about the need for justices to understand "real life" in the past. In an interview with the Detroit Free Press last October, Obama said that Justices Souter and Stephen Breyer exemplified that kind of worldview.

"I think that Justice Souter, who was a Republican appointee, Justice Breyer, a Democratic appointee, are very sensible judges," Obama said. "They take a look at the facts and they try to figure out: How does the Constitution apply to these facts? They believe in fidelity to the text of the Constitution, but they also think you have to look at what is going on around you and not just ignore real life."

Obama added that he'd want a justice who "recognizes that one of the roles of the courts is to protect people who don't have a voice. That's the special role of that institution. The vulnerable, the minority, the outcast, the person with the unpopular idea, the journalist who is shaking things up. That's inherently the role of the court. And if somebody doesn't appreciate that role, then I don't think they are going to make a very good justice."

Around the time of the confirmation hearings of Justice John Roberts, which happened in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans in 2005, Obama said he'd want a justice who was responsive to the kinds of problems revealed in the hurricane's aftermath.

"I think that Katrina does indicate that we've got a lot of problems in our midst both in terms of poverty, in terms of the differences in life opportunities for blacks, whites, Hispanics, and that that has to inform how we think about every branch of government and their functions, and I think that the Supreme Court is no different," Obama said on ABC's This Week in September 2005. Obama voted against Roberts' confirmation.

Obama also voted to filibuster the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006.

Explaining his position inan interview with Time magazine, Obama said that filibustering is an unsustainable if unavoidable political tactic and that Democrats ought to just win elections so they don't have to do it.

"What I specifically said was, I will be supporting the filibuster, but I think we have to recognize that if we aren't making the case for our values and winning elections, then procedures inside the Beltway will not save us," Obama said.

Three years later, the Democratic party's electoral prowess is such that not only will they not have to resort to a filibuster, the opposition probably won't even have the choice. (As HuffPost's Sam Stein reports, Republicans have the equivalent of a filibuster in the Judiciary Committee, but Democrats can find a way around that if necessary.)

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[Gainsbourg69]

09:39 PM on 05/03/2009

All this talk about Obama's supreme court picks reminds me of Sarah palin and her inability to name more than one supreme court decision.

"But...but..but, I have more executive experience than he does."

God, how fortunate we are to have Obama as president.

[viflyer]

06:05 PM on 05/03/2009

See! Here it comes. Obama to pick CENTRIST judge! I told you the FIX is in. Its going to be corporate shill judge. Obama is a Harvard trained corporate good ol boy. We have been HAD.

[Weirdwriter]

07:16 PM on 05/03/2009

If you're pretending to be one of those liberal "radicals" the Repubs warned us about, you need to fluff up yer memory chip.

What part of your "Harvard trained corporate good old boy" definition includes a man who actually turned down a cushy corporate law job and went into low-paid community organizing instead?

[viflyer]

06:47 AM on 05/04/2009

You really believe that stuff don't you? Obama is this "man of the people" . As far as I am concerned that was all part of the Presidential plan. I mean they sure used your line heavy in the campaign to convince us he he was one of US. It was a CON.

I judge him by his actions, and so far he is doing exactly what a corporate SHILL would do.
You can go on and on with this man of the people stuff but that's not what he is doing or saying.

Oh, wait, my bad, he does give that same flowery "man of the people" speech over and over again, any chance he gets.

We have been HAD.

[DWX]

04:34 PM on 05/03/2009

Has anyone else noticed almost all of the high profile positions in Obama’s Administartion are filled by women (Clinton, Sebelius, Napolitano, Rice, Blair, etc.). No wonder Obama’s Administration is getting erratic, chaotic, and hysterical by the day.

[tman418]

05:58 PM on 05/03/2009

Explain how Obama is becoming erratic, chaotic, and hysterical please.

[viflyer]

06:07 PM on 05/03/2009

What a brilliant comment. Go back and talk to that post that talks back to you.

[AngieMom57]

01:37 PM on 05/03/2009

I did the regular Wiki &/w Google regarding Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge from New York; and found her a worthy candidate, her affiliation with BUSH-World is a bit odd.

My vote is still with Retired Judge Bea Ann Smith; her liberal views on gay marriage and her working knowledge of our judicial branch speaks volumes, just saying...hold that thought...

http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2006/111006_smith.html

[viflyer]

06:09 PM on 05/03/2009

He is going to pick some guy that was a corporate lobbyist or spent his time defending corporations against average Americans. Kind of like Rahm! A nice centrist, ha!

[stell]

09:07 AM on 05/03/2009

What we know about OToma is that he is a hypocrite. During the campaign, he said Affirmative Action should be based on income and not race, now that he needs to lock down the Hispanic vote, he's totally ok with Affirmative Action. In the end he will pick a Hispanic female in a totally politically calculating move, but will give some other reason for it, and people will believe it.

[tman418]

05:58 PM on 05/03/2009

HE got a big percentage of the Hispanic vote so I don't buy that.

[viflyer]

06:13 PM on 05/03/2009

Don't you have anyhting better to do than to DWELL on afirmative action! I hate closet racists.

And besides, your characterization of his comments during the campaign are NOT correct. He said he DID support affirmative action, but appllicants had to be qualified.

[Doofus]

08:32 AM on 05/03/2009

Going to go way out on a limb here & point out that liberals/progressives
and even moderates have been screwed by conservative Repos as far as
appointments to the Court ever since Ron Reagan, and enough is enough.

There is absolutely NO WAY that the Demo party should not expect or demand
the appointment of intelligent, qualified, liberal, activist jurists for any & all Court
vacancies that come up during Mr Obama's terms in office, starting right now.

[Horus45]

01:20 PM on 05/03/2009

AMEN!

[DallasMike]

12:09 PM on 05/04/2009

Last time I check lady justice was still blind.

the "judge's oath," codified at 28 U.S.C. § 453:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.

[viflyer]

07:02 AM on 05/03/2009

The Democrats will encourage a Republican filibuster rather than have the "moderates" do it since it makes them look bad.

Harry will say that he is helpless to do anything and Obama will withdraw his "progressive " nominee and trot out a corporate loving shill.

The big corporations will get who they want and Obama will say he had to compromise and all will be well.

It's all a FIX and WE lose

[Horus45]

01:24 PM on 05/03/2009

The problem with your theory is that Obama has NEVER been a CEO or Board Member of a Major Corporation, like the previous administration was tied to.

He is not beholden to Big Corps the way Republicans are.

[viflyer]

06:16 PM on 05/03/2009

How naive! Have you bothered to look at how he is handling the banks???

[wagthedog1001]

12:08 AM on 05/03/2009

"Obama added that he'd want a justice who 'recognizes that one of the roles of the courts is to protect people who don't have a voice.'"

Exactly why I voted for the man and respect him. It's about time we start filling the court with those who will respect the lower classes rather than the Ritchie Riches.

God bless America.

And thanks to all who support him.

[viflyer]

07:10 AM on 05/03/2009

Man have you got it BAD. You need some deprogramming, and in a hurry!

[Horus45]

01:25 PM on 05/03/2009

I would say it is YOU who needs deprogramming!

[Solaris123]

11:32 PM on 05/02/2009

Still waiting for some m-ron to propose a Kennedy.

[condorseven]

05:04 AM on 05/03/2009

Actually, President Raygun, Mr. pro-labor himself, took care of that in 1988.

By the way, Obama's willingness to provide money to the Big Three was, in large part, due to his concern for the hemoraging of union jobs. Too little, too late? Maybe, but it was a heck of a lot more than most were willing to do. Don't let your short memory get in the way of your good intentions.

Please provide some names of some "labor friendly candidates" to the Court. Inquiring minds...

[Solaris123]

11:31 PM on 05/02/2009

In line with Obama's selling of his public persona, the pick will be in tune with the PC image--a mized heritage woman is most likely. the darker the better.
Thus, the discussion will be deflected by tre obsequious press and we can all happily forget that all labor friendly candidates were ignored, as usual.

[viflyer]

07:34 AM on 05/04/2009

Interesting!

[BluePrideStephen]

09:12 PM on 05/02/2009

I want President Obama to call Berry Gordy for sage advice on The Supremes.

He will tell him that like Motown, our govt. foundation is a triumverant of power. The Supremes are central to that foundation. They establish the direction, the velocity and the perpetual effectiveness of your brand. Sitting in judgement is counted in decades while laws and precedence may last even longer. This cascading effect of judgement attains critical mass effective throughout the 50 States, commonwealths, territories, possessions and western world.

Berry to Berry: Make The Supremes and The Supremes will make YOU (your govt. of course).

[jacobnyc]

08:47 PM on 05/02/2009

The only person that would satisfy me is Diane Wood. Sottomayor is nearly not as qualified as Ms. Wood. I hope Obama doesn't pull a fast one on us by electing a closet Conservative. We need Judge Wood.

[stylenease]

09:58 PM on 05/02/2009

Sonia Sotomayor is considered "legally liberal", and her record proves that out without a doubt. Sotomayor would be an excellent choice.

[jacobnyc]

01:49 AM on 05/03/2009

Believe it or not, but some Conservatives are actually pulling for Sottomayor, now that alone makes me want to cringe. Kagan has no experience for the job and that leaves Judge Wood. She's a liberal stalwart, extremely smart and superb choice. No Sottomayor and No Kagan.

If you care to read Michelle Malkin's take on it:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/01/obamas-choices-gird-your-loins/

[viflyer]

07:36 AM on 05/04/2009

Ah yes, the closet conservative, or perhaps a closet corporatist. We shall see. But, I bet I suspect a fast one.

[theclosetconservative2]

07:20 PM on 05/02/2009

The President wants a liberal to replace a liberal. Whoever it is will probably be young enough to leave the President's imprint on the court for generations to come. Unfortunately it will be someone that sees things in the Constitution that aren't there and legislates from the bench. http://theclosetconservative.com

[condorseven]

08:16 PM on 05/02/2009

Get out of the closet!

The conservative justices employ interpretive methodologies and justifications just as as readily as liberal justices.

And yes, I'm prepared to match you example for example.

[theclosetconservative2]

08:45 PM on 05/02/2009

Even people who believe that women should have unfettered abortion rights concede that Roe Vs. Wade was a textbook case of judicial over reach. http://theclosetconservative.com

[LJIESQ]

09:31 PM on 05/02/2009

Give the "legislate from the bench" and "activist" BS a rest. Are you referring, for example, to the California Supreme Court "legislating" the right to gay marriage ? If so, you should know that the entire California Supreme Court is made up of extremely conservative Republican justices who were appointed by Republican Governors. They were belittled by the far right for their "judicial activism" in "legislating from the bench". The ruling, by the way, was unanimous. And indeed, the Republican effort to get Florida State and U.S. Federal Courts involved in the Terry Schiavo case was a thinly disguised demand for judicial "activism". And there are a zillion other examples because we all know that "judicial activism" is defined as any court opinion that is in any way different from what the red necked, right winged, reactionary, reagonite, religious, republican nutcakes think it should be.

[viflyer]

07:40 AM on 05/04/2009

The only time conservatives don't like legislating from the bench is when the decisions don't come down on their twisted, perverted side. All Scalia DOES is legislate from the bench.

Conservatives don't have a judicial philosophy, they have an ideology.

[the-lexicon]

04:01 PM on 05/02/2009

I really think he should pick another New Hampshirite. New Hampshire has a very unique political/legal landscape...it tends to value reasoned compromise over party gain...

Souter, picked by Bush I as much for his almost absolute lack of writings and public statements, was supposed to be a sleeper conservative, one that could wriggle under the democratic party barbed wire, then stand up and start attacking for "the team". He turned out to be an unqualified disappointment to Bush, instead showing not a centrist position, but a neutral position.

The only notable foible in his career, was his position on Kelo vs. New London...the eminent domain case. Besides that one wild outlier, his watch was unmarred by seriously horrific incidents.

So, Mr. President...please consider maintaining the 'proper' balance of the court, and select another New Hampshire jurist!

lexicon

[wm1066]

02:49 PM on 05/02/2009

I bet he waits until Al Franken gets in before he makes his choice known, and then I think it will be a man for Souters position, this will be a curve ball to the Republicans whose battle plan will be geared for a woman. They will have all the arguments for a select group of women and if Obama puts forth a man they wont be prepared, and with a Democratic 60 vote margin they wont be able to respond in time.
Obama will have more time in the future to put another woman on the Court.

[naschkatze]

04:45 PM on 05/02/2009

I hope he does this, but I am not certain about the Democratic senators being 100% for Obama's choice. Obama is sure to pick someone who is pro-choice, and I don't think we can trust some of the so-called BlueDogs on that issue, Nelson of NE for an example.