Obama's Greatest Mistake

President Barack Obama has a wonderful chance to begin to shape the next few decades in this country.

As Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush before him, he has an opportunity to shape the Supreme Court in a new, dramatic way. He may have as many as three appointments this term and more if there is a second term. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to whom he has been compared, recognizing the need for radical change on the Supreme Court, fought the Republicans tooth and nail on his selections in order to lift the country from economic depression and despair.

As I wrote in my most recent book, "The Next 25 Years: The New Supreme Court and What It Means For Americans," what is done now will affect the next few decades. The Republican stranglehold on the Court, which has existed for the last 25 years, will continue for another 25 years or more unless Obama appoints someone different than the names now being circulated.
The great decisions of the 20th Century were written by Thurgood Marshall, Frank Murphy, William Douglas, Hugo Black and Earl Warren, who were not previous members of the judiciary. They did not live in the isolation of the legal world, the kind of jurist that Obama is threatening to choose.

Justice William J. Brennan was an exception - he was very different from the names now being circulated. Although formerly a jurist, he was relatively unknown, from well outside the Beltway and way outside traditional circles.

It is not only the kind of liberalism they brought to the Court. The greatest influence of the great liberal Justices, particularly William J. Brennan, is not in the kinds of decisions they wrote but in the way they influenced the other members of the Court and, more importantly, the way they influenced the country.

Obama should not be looking only to moderate Democrats. The great liberal Justices gave us one-man/one-vote, proportional representation, school integration. The interplay between those Justices, their decisions, the movements that they helped support (such as civil rights and Vietnam protests) and the people that they helped motivate are all interrelated.
Obama's apparent failure to see the extraordinary effect of these Justices is astonishing and tragic for this country.

Comments

[raop]

Obama's apparent failure to see the extraordinary effect of these Justices is astonishing and tragic for this country.


I dont understand. If the President hasnt come out with a candidate yet, what is this cribbing about? Apprarently the GOP is planning to oppose the nominee. For heavens sake, let the man at least come out with a nominee before opposing him. The number of armchair critics in this country is astonishing.
Sen. Hatch is going around saying the nominee will be out this week. I mean seriously, senator, the president took 6 months to select a pet dog for his daughters. You would think he would spend more than a week before naming a judge.

[BARRISTER]

Nominate Michelle Obama to the Supreme Court!!

[Soapfan]

Guess i missed the "list" that the Whhite House out?

Going by a list the media made up is totally lame.

[livesimply]

I totally agree. Many of us do. One cannot do great things like FDR if they concede and compromise. I voted Obama and he is certainly more competent than the alternative, but I knew that "most liberal" label the republicans were trying to fix on him was far from accurate.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Marshall, Murphy, Douglas, Black and Warren were moderates.

[mikefina]

The Roosevelt effort to stack the court is widely regarded as the low point of his tenure as president. It is a blight on his legacy. The author knows this, but inconveniently fails to inform the reader.

I lean right, but hope and expect President Obama will go very hard left. I think we will be betters served by a vigorous debate on the issues that divide us.

For the same reason that I am apalled to have ONLY Dem leadership in WH, Senate and House, so do I think we are underserved by the current court.

[livesimply]

What about Bush's stacking the court?

[mikefina]

Bush filled vacant seats.
Roosevelt proposed to ADD seats. He would have added a position for judges over age 70 1/2.
History repudiated Roosevelt for this tactic.
It has NOTHING to do with replacing justices with those of the presidents "bent".

If you had actually read the post above, you would see that I favor President Obama being even MORE partisan in the interest of producing a more vigorous debate within the court.

Pay attention, the game moves fast.

[S1m0n]

When did the US get proportional representation?

[Manx]

Let's hope Obama won't try to "reach out to the Republicans" when appointing a Supreme Court nominee. No more Borks.

[happycat]

I don't think he will nominate anybody that bad. I will keep my fingers crossed however, that he does not choose another member of the "middle of the road" club that he keeps pulling people from.

[clarryr]

"As I wrote in my most recent book"

So this article is about hawking your book.

It is nothing more than sensationalism to say:

"Obama's apparent failure to see the extraordinary effect of these Justices is astonishing and tragic for this country."

seeing that the President has not said who he would choose or even offered a short list.

[Whatashame]

Has OBAMA said openly who he is considering. NO, NO, NO. The MSM as always is speculating on his chioces and will get it wrong. What are you commenting about? Let the president name names then you can voice your so call objections

[Whatashame]

Has OBAMA said openly who he is considering. NO, NO, NO. The MSM as always is speculating on his chioces and will get it wrong. What are you commenting about? Let the president name names then you can voice your so call objections.

[Whatashame]

Obama's apparent failure to see the extraordinary effect of these Justices is astonishing and tragic for this country.

Has OBAMA said openly who he is considering. NO. The MSM as always is speculating on his chioces and will get it wrong. What are you commenting about? Let the president name names then you can voice your so call objections.

[happycat]

I agree with you. I am sick of the constant speculation by the MSM drones. The two to three "candidates" that have been mentioned over and over, are moderate Democrats who have close ties to Obama. I am tired of Obama putting the same type of people from his circle - Geithner (for example) to fill critical posts and create policy. Nominating the next Supreme Court Justice, is going to be one of the most important things that Obama does, and it will be a huge part of his legacy. He better think outside the box this time, and he better not muck it up again with another middle of the road member of the club.

[Osmona]

Why is this man President Obama's "mistake". Has there been a decision made yet? I wish everyone (not us bloggers) would chill out and let our president make his decision.

HOW NEGATIVE CAN YOU GET? Shsssh!!!!

[ramblingjohnny]

That why I want President Obama to make his decision public soon to end all the speculation once and for all.

[DennyCrane]

As much as I would love to see more liberals to balance out the conservatives, I'd rather see a justice who leaves their political views at home and just focuses on the law, its underlying intent, and it's real-world consequences. The left hated it when Bush and Reagan used litmus tests for their nominees. Why should we excuse Obama if he does the same?

[Marcantm]

You truly don't understand how the law works.

[TanzaniaTeacher]

I think it would be nice if people actually allowed Obama to make a choice, himself, not the options that the media are offering, before calling him a failure. Judging a decision before it is even made seems a bit ridiculous.

And let's remember also the great failure that Souter turned out to be, not for moderates or even the left, but for George Bush and the other Republicans who placed him on the court.