More

Obama Supreme Court Nominee: The Lessons The White House Is Applying To The Coming Battle

BEN FELLER   04/17/10 11:16 AM ET   AP

Court

WASHINGTON — Expect a fight. Enlist supporters but keep them in line. Protect secrecy. Reach out to opponents even though you can't woo them.

Inside the White House, those are some of the lessons learned from the selection and confirmation of President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court nominee last year. With a vacancy coming this summer on the nine-member court, those lessons amount to a road map for how Obama will choose the next justice – and what his team will do to get that person confirmed by the Senate.

The choice of a Supreme Court justice, with lifetime tenure, can affect American life for a generation or more, giving a president a reach that lasts far beyond his time in the Oval Office. Justice John Paul Stevens' decision to retire after more than 34 years has given Obama a second chance within a year to shape the court.

Washington is speculating about who will get the job, but that probably won't be known publicly for weeks. Before then, there are other questions – how Obama will decide, why he will make the choice he does, what his team will do to protect his interests – that will shed light about the thinking of this president.

Obama's approach in finding a successor to Stevens, the leader of the court's liberals, is expected to mirror the one he used last year in choosing federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter, who retired.

A look at the main lessons the White House is applying, according to those who were part of last year's search and are familiar with Obama's preferences.

_Obama will pick whomever he wants.

The White House expects loud, organized opposition from conservative groups no matter the nominee and assumes that most Republican senators will start and end at "no" when it comes to a confirmation vote, especially in an election year. Of the 68 senators who voted for Sotomayor, only nine were Republicans. And GOP leaders are as at odds with Obama as ever.

_Obama has told everyone what he wants.

He wants someone who meets the expected standards – strong credentials, a record of excellence, a sharp mind, dedication to the rule of the law – plus he puts a premium on understanding how court opinions affect people in real life.

This time, the White House is playing up another factor: someone who has proved able to win people over and forge consensus. That could well point to someone with experience on a federal appeals court or someone from politics. Expect Obama to choose someone he thinks can achieve a 5-4 vote on cases by persuading the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy.

_Obama won't change his methods.

Many considered Sotomayor the front-runner all along. But Obama decided on Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice and just the third woman to serve on the court, only after digging into the weeds of the decision as a former constitutional law professor.

He read the writings of his contenders and told advisers to challenge his assumptions and make alternative cases. He interviewed the four finalists. He spent the last weekend of his review at Camp David, thought it all through some more, talked to advisers by phone, came back to the White House and made his decision.

_Obama will reach out for his own reasons.

Futile as it may be, Obama will signal bipartisanship. Last year, Obama called or met with every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which decides whether to recommend confirming a nominee. Once he settled on Sotomayor, she made a get-to-you-know tour through the Senate, meeting with 92 lawmakers. She still ended up getting confirmed in a largely partisan vote. So why try?

The outreach allows the White House to try to solicit genuine input from the other side and perhaps disarm some potential critics with in-person attention. It also allows Obama and his team to say they are not shutting out Republicans, and to be able to call out the critics who accuse them of that.

_Obama wants help from friendly interest groups. To a point.

The White House won't get pinned down for the record on which candidates Obama is considering, although many of them are known. That means that the White House also does not publicly defend potential nominees who come under attack in this speculative period of the next few weeks.

Instead, Obama aides works with outside surrogates and advisers to stand up for those candidates and counter the message. Such support is considered vital because the White House does not want Obama's eventual nominee to be nicked to death, as one White House official put it, ahead of time.

That coordination is under way. Yet the White House is also warning friends that it does not want them campaigning for any of their favored candidates. That's frowned upon because, Obama aides say, it doesn't sway the president and could even serve to tag certain candidates with labels.

_Obama wants secrecy.

The circle will be tight of those truly in the know about what Obama is thinking. The White House wants to disseminate information on its own schedule. That keeps his options open, puts him more in control of the story and allows the final candidates to hear directly from Obama.

_Obama clearly has a list he likes.

Three of the people on Obama's list are federal appeals court judge Diane Wood, Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Often noted is that all three of them, like Sotomayor, interviewed with Obama last year.

Less remembered is how administration officials close to Obama described those three candidates after the fact: Obama would have been comfortable choosing any of them for the court. Presumably, that much has not changed.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Expect a fight. Enlist supporters but keep them in line. Protect secrecy. Reach out to opponents even though you can't woo them. Inside the White House, those are some of the lesso...
WASHINGTON — Expect a fight. Enlist supporters but keep them in line. Protect secrecy. Reach out to opponents even though you can't woo them. Inside the White House, those are some of the lesso...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 343
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
  1 of 2  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
amleth 12:17 AM on 04/18/2010
He should go for his best candidate and meet the repubs with the full ferocity he can muster. Go after them in the press, in the halls of government, in the streets.

Let them stand and filibuster. It simply is not done in regard to judicial appointments.

Let them break with tradition and decorum again and look like what they are.

Where will they find someone who can  Read More...
05:43 AM on 04/20/2010
Lani Guinier for SCOTUS.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PotomacOracle
The Solution:debt free credit clearing systems
09:20 PM on 04/18/2010
Obama made Kagan the first woman to serve as solicitor general. Thurgood Marshall is the most recent of several justices who served in that role before joining the Supreme Court.

Kagan, who has never been a judge, has made a half-dozen arguments in front of the justices in the past year.

As the first woman dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan won a reputation for hiring prominent conservative legal scholars and bridging disagreements between liberal and conservative faculty members.

Yet 31 Republican senators voted against her confirmation as Solicitor General last year in what was seen as a warning to Obama should he want to put her on the Supreme Court.

Her judicial record of accomplishments is very thin, about the same as Uncle Clarence Thomas' was when he was nominated.

What's really driving her nomination is that she was on the short list last time because of Larry Summers and the Harvard cabal. The same is true this time. However, she's way more conservative than Summers or anuy of his cabal, at least publicly. I think summers and Rubin are all apolitical and just go for the money and power no matter what the politics.

Kagan assures there will never be a court decision reversing the Corporations are People decision. That gives the banksters infinite control of the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MountPanic
06:05 PM on 04/18/2010
Since the Republicans now go to the extreme over ANYTHING that Obama does, even if it's something they were once in favor of, he may as well start making some more radical choices. It's going to be the same lunacy either way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
medic628
05:34 PM on 04/18/2010
The President should nominate Anita Hill to the Supreme Court! Wouldn't that shakeup Clarence?
05:39 PM on 04/18/2010
ok.......... that was stupid
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
medic628
06:05 PM on 04/18/2010
It is funny EGO creature!
07:25 PM on 04/18/2010
I found it humorous. Inability to find humor in a subject often indicates lack of mastery of the subject
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
patriciacaldwell
Yes, this keeps me awake at night.
07:32 PM on 04/18/2010
It would be an ironic choice, but you can bet that Dr. Hill would decline. Why give Clarence Thomas another chance to sexually harass her? He still has his porn collection and a man doesn't change just because he's a Supreme.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
trucap
05:25 PM on 04/18/2010
is it true that thomas is ritering ? that would be great if true .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PotomacOracle
The Solution:debt free credit clearing systems
09:12 PM on 04/18/2010
He retired intellectually when he was about 21. So yes, he's retired.
03:48 PM on 04/18/2010
All we can hope for is to hold the line. The liberals are the ones leaving.
04:57 PM on 04/18/2010
"He wants someone who meets the expected standards – strong credentials, a record of excellence, a sharp mind, dedication to the rule of the law – plus he puts a premium on understanding how court opinions affect people in real life."

The expected standard....further enslavement of Americans by banks and government.

Dedication to the rule of law....Wall Street's rule of law.

Understanding how court opinions affect people in real life....billionaire thieves have feelings, too. Not everyone can do an orange jumpsuit well.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ohsnap
11:38 PM on 04/18/2010
Kennedy and Scalia aren't getting any younger. Both born in 1936. They could hold out for a GOP governor, but it is entirely possible they will not have a choice.
photo
mlaiuppa
Pres. Sarcasm Society. Like we need your approval.
01:40 PM on 04/18/2010
I don't think Ginsberg is going to last too long either. I expect her to retire on Obama's watch too. Whether it's his first term or second term will be the question.

Whoever doesn't get nominated this go around will remain on his list. That's why you have a list.

I don't expect he'll replace Stevens with a woman. But when Ginsberg retires, he will. I look for Kagen to take Ginsberg's spot.

Right now I'm liking Thomas for Stevens. Of course, having two Thomas' on the Court will be a little confusing.
03:41 PM on 04/18/2010
One of them is paranoid and doesn't talk, so that shoudl help.
madame48
NO..it's a gop Cookbook !Tempus edax,homo edacior
01:35 PM on 04/18/2010
Obama could nominate Jesus and the GOP would vote no to the hippie pinko who likes poor people
03:44 PM on 04/18/2010
So true. They have strayed as far from the Bible as it is possible to go. As a Catholic, whenever I hear someone complain against "entitlements" and how they want "lower taxes" I think, I could write a 10,000-word essay explaining how those views are exactly OPPOSITE the New Testament. Do any Tea Partiers call themselves Christian?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bigOther
07:04 PM on 04/18/2010
Yes, but not at all opposite to the reinterpretation of Christianity, espoused by many of our political leaders, by Doug Coe, who founded the Fellowship, and who believed the raving of Norwegian immigrant Avram Vereide. Vereide dreamed that Christianity has been understood completely upside down, and the Jesus was AGAINST the POOR and in favor of the wealthy. (Vereided persuaded big industrialists to oppose Franklin D. Roosevelt because of these beliefs.) You have to read it to believe it, but it is faith in this version of Christianity that permits these guys to stand their with their teeth hanging out saying it is un Christian to support programs that assist the poor. Instead, they believe in strong man rulers and admire Mao, Pol Pot, and yes, Adolph H. Read Jeff Scharlet's book The Family.

This is the real religious philosophy behind altogether too many of our congressmen (De Mint, Coburn,Ensign, McConnell et al) who are members of the Family/Fellowship and/or C Street.
01:09 PM on 04/18/2010
A liberal for a liberal, please.

Although Justice Stevens, nominated by a Republican, was not considered a liberal in 1975. That tells us how far the court has moved to the right, and how unbalanced it is.
photo
mlaiuppa
Pres. Sarcasm Society. Like we need your approval.
01:42 PM on 04/18/2010
Exactly.

It is unfortunate that all of the justices that may retire will be on the liberal side. So if Obama replaces them with the current "centrist" rather than the current "liberal" the court will go right. Even if he replaces them with current "liberals" they'll still be farther right.

So the court goes farther and farther to the right.

And corporations are artificial people will more advantages than a real person and none of the responsibilities and consequences.

And you can kiss net neutrality goodbye.

They'll eventually undermine health care too.
12:00 PM on 04/18/2010
The chickens are coming HOME to roost. While Obama was giving the base a treat by chastising the Supreme Court in his state of the union, he only managed to piss off the only swing vote on the court, Anthony Kennedy, by calling him an idiot for his majority opinion on McCain-Feingold. Once the healthcare lawsuit by the attorney generals gets to the Supreme Court, it will surely be a 5-4 ruling. No replacing one liberal justice with another liberal will change that, not even if Ginsburg retires.
madame48
NO..it's a gop Cookbook !Tempus edax,homo edacior
01:40 PM on 04/18/2010
Drive an Insight?
photo
mlaiuppa
Pres. Sarcasm Society. Like we need your approval.
01:44 PM on 04/18/2010
Nothing has changed.

It's been 5-4.

It's going to continue to be 5-4.

There is no swing vote.

Stevens was the swing between the 5 conservatives and the 3 liberals.
photo
StevieRae
2012 Choice-Oligarchy or a Republic
11:19 AM on 04/18/2010
Let's hope the Republicans on the Judiciary Comm. can be reminded during the USSC hearings of the words by Thomas Jefferson carved in marble at his memorial.

This craze about judicial activism or constitutional absolutism is nonsense, when considers Jefferson's warning.
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat, which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regime of their barbarous ancestors."
BlackTantalus
Historian/ex-ad-exec/liberal/Lexus-driver
10:53 AM on 04/18/2010
I'm a reasonably educated and informed individual. I've got a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a Ph. D.; I read The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Car and Driver and Automobile; I watch the four talking heads on MSNBC that Republicans fear most; online I look at Huffington Post, All Hat No Cattle and A Blue View daily; I probably read more books last month than any two tea baggers have read in their lifetimes; and yesterday I spoke to more liberals than tea baggers believe exist; but I don't know what "alinsky" is and/or means. Maybe a cross burning texhnique?
madame48
NO..it's a gop Cookbook !Tempus edax,homo edacior
01:34 PM on 04/18/2010
Saul Alinsky...famous labor-left organizer of the 60s wrote about techniques for action (I'm old and memory fading). The right found his writings and have decided to use them. That's why you see comments about "false flag" as they say it is Dems at the teabagger rallies with the N word placards.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
2CLEVER
10:14 AM on 04/18/2010
well if we take health care as a guide...he'll start with a conservative to moderate nominee & still get beat up for nominating a commie
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crislevin
09:55 AM on 04/18/2010
get goodwin liu already!

GOP complain about Liu as Appeals court judge? fine, lets withdraw that one, and get him to supreme court!, 39, aisan minority, liberal, dream come true!

Dems need a fight to galvanize the base, why NOT?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
babyboomerorig
We are women, hear us roar!
10:29 AM on 04/18/2010
He'd be great. Been called the best legal mind in the country.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
StJames
In absentia luci tenebrae vincunt
11:00 AM on 04/18/2010
What about Koh? I've heard he is another excellent candidate
09:25 AM on 04/18/2010
Pfft. He doesn't learn. He will still give access and power to the right in this process. And they will still skr00w him.

He should nominate a ridiculous way-left lefty... expect the right to go bananas, then dump him/her and retreat to a serious lefty. But he doesn't get political strategy... and he'll throw in a closeted iesbian like Kagan, who will take out her self-repression on the nation.

Healthcare passed because Pelosi refused to let Obama back away ...as the splneless wonder would have preferred.
10:56 AM on 04/18/2010
No. Healthcare passed because Obama went out and stumped for it when Congress couldn't herd their cats into the same space. What people misunderstand about Obama is that he has never been a hard left type of guy. He is an ambitious guy who leans slightly left. But most of all he is a pragmatist and wants to do what he thinks is right, but in a way where legislation actually gets passed.

As the first black (half black) president, the last thing you really want is to leave the job with nothing done, because you will have screwed it up for every black candidate following. The refrain from the right would be, "Oh, it's 2016 and this candidate is another Obama".

So he is much less concerned with making the far left or progressives totally happy if it means being "pure" and getting nothing passed.

He is not spineless, but rather, picking his spots to assert under the guise of giving others their say. Kind of like on a basketball team where you might lay low, do the Steve Nash thing and distribute the ball around.... unless your teammates can't get their junk together. Then you start taking more shots yourself or asserting yourself. Magic Johnson was a good example of that where he would dish to Kareem or Worthy, but was quite capable of taking over the game when necessary.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:51 PM on 04/18/2010
A little spineless. O said nothing as Lieberman, after supporting the idea, denied the extension of a Medicare buy in to the over 55.

Not one word of objection from President O!