More

Obama Supreme Court Pick: President Talking With Possible High Court Nominees

Obama Supreme Court Pick

BEN FELLER   04/21/10 09:03 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, treading carefully in the explosive arena of abortion and the Supreme Court, said Wednesday he will choose a nominee who pays heed to the rights of women and the privacy of their bodies. Yet he said he won't enforce any abortion rights "litmus tests."

Obama said it is "very important to me" that his court choice take women's rights into account in interpreting the Constitution, his most expansive comments yet about how a woman's right to choose will factor into his decision.

He plans to choose someone to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens within "the next couple weeks," he told CNBC.

Obama accelerated his political outreach and his conversations with candidates, positioning himself for one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency. He invited Senate leaders – Republicans as well as Democrats – to discuss the issue at the White House and commented briefly to reporters before their private meeting.

His rejection of the idea of "litmus tests" was standard presidential language, keeping him from being boxed in and protecting his eventual nominee from charges of bringing preconceived decisions to the bench.

Obama's pick is not expected to change the ideological balance on the court, though Stevens, the leader of the court's liberals, has played a major role in the court's upholding of abortion rights. Stevens, who turned 90 on Tuesday, is retiring this summer.

Whoever Obama picks has the potential to affect the lives and rights of Americans for a generation or more.

The president is considering about 10 people, including a newly confirmed name, federal appeals court Judge Ann Williams of Chicago.

Among the others are appeals court judges Diane Wood, Merrick Garland and Sidney Thomas, former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow.

When asked if he could nominate someone who did not support a woman's right to choose, Obama said: "I am somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction."

He said he would not judge candidates on a single-issue abortion test.

"But I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women's rights," Obama said. "And that's going to be something that's very important to me, because I think part of what our core constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity. And women are not exempt from that."

Such a detailed answer raised the question of whether Obama had, in fact, spelled out a fundamental test over abortion. The White House rejected that.

"I think a litmus test is when you say, will you ask a direct question about – do you believe this? Do you believe that?" White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "I think the president will ask any nominee discuss how they view the Constitution and the legal principles enshrined in it."

The Supreme Court declared in 1973 through its Roe v. Wade decision that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion, and close questioning on the issue has been a feature of Senate confirmation hearings for some time. Federal courts have battled with the ramifications of the landmark decision, although the core ruling has gone untouched.

Obama's language largely meshed with what he said during the presidential campaign. In a Democratic primary debate in November 2007, he was asked whether he would insist that a Supreme Court nominee support abortion rights. He said then: "I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy."

Meanwhile, Obama sought a cooperative tone with his Republican critics even as the White House braces for a confirmation fight.

In the Oval Office, Obama hosted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee. He later telephoned nine more senators on that panel.

Obama praised senators of both parties for working together on a "smooth, civil, thoughtful nomination process and confirmation process" last year for Sonia Sotomayor and said he hoped for the same this time. Sotomayor replaced David Souter on the court despite most Republicans' voting against her.

McConnell and Sessions, the two Republicans who met with Obama, promised to give Obama's nominee fair treatment.

Yet in a joint statement, they sternly warned against any nominee who would "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 rubber stamp or policy arm for any administration."

No names of potential nominees were discussed in the White House meeting, said Reid, the Senate's top Democrat.

He said he told Obama the nominee need not be another federal judge, but possibly "someone who's an academic, someone who's held public office, someone who's an outstanding lawyer."

Obama is openly considering people outside the judiciary.

For his part, Leahy was sharply critical of the current Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, a nominee of former President George W. Bush.

"We have right now a very, very activist, conservative activist, Supreme Court," Leahy said, citing recent decisions. "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."

Obama has begun having conversations with his candidates for the court, although no formal interviews yet.

___

Associated Press writer Jesse J. Holland contributed to this story.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, treading carefully in the explosive arena of abortion and the Supreme Court, said Wednesday he will choose a nominee who pays heed to the rights of women and...
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, treading carefully in the explosive arena of abortion and the Supreme Court, said Wednesday he will choose a nominee who pays heed to the rights of women and...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 290
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
AZreb
equal-opportunity Independent heathen
09:50 PM on 04/22/2010
NOT Napolitano! She is a waste of perfectly good skin! Can't even protect our southern border from invasion and wants amnesty for the lawbreaking illegals.
10:57 AM on 04/22/2010
Hopefully Obama will load up the court with young., healthy judges. He is getting his second pick and he has only been president for 15 months. I'm hoping for at least 2 or 3 more before he leaves office.
photo
Believein2012
redistribute your wealth here
08:33 AM on 04/22/2010
bHo should immediately nominate Angela Davis. She has the exact same views of America as Obama and the experience to prove it. Activist, Educator, Organizer what a perfect fit for this administration.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DeloresT
Writer/retired teacher
09:29 PM on 04/21/2010
Justice Leah Sears won a highly politicized campaign to serve on the Ga. Supreme Court. She was able to win....here in a state that's still fighting the civl war. I'm hoping that she will be given serious consideration. I would love to have her counter the lunacy of Clarence Thomas.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Kolek
08:25 PM on 04/21/2010
"""Many conservatives, in particular the far right, the tea party members and Rush Limbaugh, fail to realize how intelligent Barack Obama is. Rush is not even in the same league. To his credit, he did graduate from high school. One on one, Rush would not even come close. The President graduated from Columbia University in New York and received his law degree, graduating magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. He became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review and later worked as a civil rights lawyer and as a community organizer in New York and Chicago. I think he is more than qualified to select a candidate for the supreme court."
12:00 AM on 04/22/2010
Yes. My president is MORE than qualified to select a candidate. He is a smart and brilliant man.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
terry63
12:07 AM on 04/22/2010
Yeah youre right I still dont get it.
07:14 PM on 04/21/2010
I never heard of Ann Williams before today. Just looked up her Wikipedia entry. This tidbit here will get some birther head gaskets blowing:


"Internationally, in 2006, Judge Williams co-led a conference on constitutional law and law reform in Nairobi, Kenya attended by over 125 Kenyan attorneys. Later that year, Judge Williams was invited by the Chief Justice of Kenya as the first non-Kenyan judge to attend and address the Kenyan Judicial Colloquium, an annual four-day gathering of the Kenyan judiciary, on issues such as mediation, case management, and judicial ethics. At the Chief Justice's invitation, Judge Williams returned in 2007 and 2008 to present to the Colloquium issues relating to judicial training around the world. During that visit, Judge Williams also spearheaded and taught at the first Kenyan Women's Trial Advocacy Program for lawyers who represent victims of domestic violence. Judge Williams returned in August 2008 to lead another women's trial advocacy training program for 40-50 Kenyan lawyers and law students."


LOL! Wait til they get a load of that! That in itself is enough to make me like her.
Let the fireworks begin!
08:43 PM on 04/21/2010
Is this somehow controversial?
photo
raphaelbonee
The snake was right "the gods lie"
06:31 PM on 04/21/2010
Day 2 of learning a short list exist for Supreme Court nominee ... still no call.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BocaMom
04:23 PM on 04/21/2010
Bill Clinton for the Supreme Court!
03:57 PM on 04/21/2010
Progressives can expect to be overwrought with ambivalence regarding Sans Testicles' pick: those who primarily concerned with cultural and social issues such as abortion and gay rights will likely be happy, but those for whom economic justice matters will not be.
12:19 PM on 04/21/2010
I don't get how thoughtful people, and especially women who 'protest' for equality and rights, etc., can in the same breath support abortion.

I get that babies, or in most cases the 'thought' of babies, can be a big inconvenience. It can be scary for many. But how does that justify killing them? How can so many women unequivocally support this position?

Maybe it is ok to kill babies. Or maybe there is no such thing as 'ok and not ok' because nothing really matters. Perhaps it really boils down to what is convenient for the person at the time.

But if the threshold for taking a life is reduced to an individual's perception of what is convenient for them at that particular time, then all bets are off.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
IrisMozenter
12:27 PM on 04/21/2010
As long as you think a woman would only choose an abortion as a matter of convenience, you can never possibly understand what pro-choice is about. Perhaps you think that Octomom did a noble thing by having 14 babies. Regardless, the abortion rate goes down when the economy goes up. Doesn't that tell you something? Maybe we should start focusing on what we do for children after they are born.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
luvobama
Hospice volunteer...
12:59 PM on 04/21/2010
Fanned
01:08 PM on 04/21/2010
Of course it is about convenience. It can be couched in other more or less dramatic terms, but that is what it boils down to. Women want the right to 'choose' when it will be convenient for them to have a baby. I agree, but she needs to decide that before she gets pregnant. Once she is pregnent, mother nature has already changed the equation since it is no longer just the mom's welfare that needs to be considered. Being torn limb from limb and having your brain sucked out is probably not convenient for the baby. If we were to use the scales of justice to measure the 'weight of inconvenience,' I think we can all picture the result.

Octomom is obviously mentally ill so thats not a serious counter argument.

Your economic argument is more reasonable, but it still boils down to a woman's perception (and perhaps her partner's as well) of convenience. It sure as hell isn't the baby's fault. I agree it is probably easier to raise a child in better economic times, and harder in worse economic times. But let's not pretend that the high cost of diapers is really a justification to kill a baby.
12:53 PM on 04/21/2010
Way to stay on topic
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gypsysailor
Things that might have been never were.
12:12 PM on 04/21/2010
Pick me, pick me! No where in the Constitution does it say a Supreme Court Justice has to be a practicing jurist. I'm not and I'd just love a chance to make the Roberts court squirm. And believe me I would. I'd be the most outspoken Justice you ever did see.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
lazercat2008
11:49 AM on 04/21/2010
Can't we pass a motion to put all the Republicans in a closet and poke a couple holes in the door?
photo
christopherflynn
The wreligious wright is always rong...
12:02 PM on 04/21/2010
just forget the "holes in the door"....
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
lazercat2008
12:19 PM on 04/21/2010
Now thanks to the SC we can put them suffocating on you tube
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gfs5541
11:47 AM on 04/21/2010
I hate to say this, but part of women's right almost always involve the right to choose. Whatever.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
lazercat2008
11:50 AM on 04/21/2010
I hate to say this, but a bunch of old white men think they know what is best for women.
photo
christopherflynn
The wreligious wright is always rong...
12:10 PM on 04/21/2010
maybe we could transgender 'em, and get 'em pregnant and then they'd know for sure...
12:56 PM on 04/21/2010
I'm pretty sure abortion jurisprudence has nothing to do with what is right for women, but when the state has an interest so strong it interfere with fundamental liberties.

P.S: The court was whiter and older when Roe V. Wade was decided. When Casey was decided, it was the only woman on the court who wrote the opinion chipping away at Roe.
11:44 AM on 04/21/2010
Gosh, I'd accept a nominee who was left left than me...if they knew how to use a computer. Amazing that we have people responsible for legislating things like the internet, international commerce, and my uterus when most of them have no experience of technology, business, a uterus.
12:58 PM on 04/21/2010
They aren't legislating anything. Two of them have a uterus.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
billobasher
11:35 AM on 04/21/2010
Obama should not even worry about the Republcan's on this. In spite of their chest beating, they will NEVER fillubuster a Supreme Court nominee. They know that if they did they will never see another rightie on the court. The Dems will block every single nomination made to the high court by the next Republcian president.

Besides that, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Dick Lugar, will never go along.
photo
Zeus9000
Alterum ictum faciam
11:52 AM on 04/21/2010
Dems have more of a history of filibustering SC nominees than republicans do.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PWM
Eisenhower Rep. The 1% started class warfare.
11:57 AM on 04/21/2010
Any data?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KazooDan
It's funny because it's true