Obama Must Not Waver On A Souter Replacement
There are a lot of areas where, I feel, the left has to give President Obama some leeway in how he operates. There are from time to time concessions that must be made and comprises that must be happen in order for the realistic political actions of the presidency to materialize into policy. But when it comes to the Supreme Court, there can be quarter given. When it comes to the court, the center cannot hold.
President Obama should appoint an honest-to-goodness liberal to the Supreme Court.
It is to our everlasting detriment that George W. Bush was able to appoint the relatively young Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the court, and while Souter is on the left of the court and the overall balance is unlikely to seriously shift, the president must realize (and I think he does) the value on his legacy and the history of the nation over a liberal appointment. We need a justice in the mold of Thurgood Marshall, and not someone squishy enough to be the "swing" justice in the archetype the media loves so much.
We need someone who is solid as a rock on civil rights, right to choice, limits on corporate power, and an overall progressive viewpoint on the Constitution, our laws, and the overall role the court has to play.
My gut says that President Obama understands all this, and the last 100 days have led me to believe that at the end of the day his choice will fit the bill. But he should also be constantly reminded -- especially by those of us strongly in his corner -- that he has no excuse not to act from a posture of strength. He is a popular president with an excess of political capital and a strong mandate to lead. His party dominates both houses of congress. We can work on a give and take with the conservative right around the margins of the important issues of the day like health care, the environment, etc. But these people can be allowed little to no influence over the choice of an important lifetime appointment like the next justice.
Can we get a progressive supreme court justice that will stand up for America's values on the bench? Yes, we can.
Oliver Willis writes daily at OliverWillis.com. Follow him on Twitter.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't understand all this talk about the court representing this or that ideology. The court's responsibility is to rule on law as it applies to the Constitution not further some group's political agenda or aspirations.
Well, picking by political philosophy has backfired for several presidents. I recommend selecting based on quality of judical judgment. Like Jon Turley.
I just hope Obama thinks highly of his pick and that pick meets his criteria. That'll be enough for me.
A liberal for the sake of a liberal, a woman or man for the sake of gender, race preferences: All of these have some interest for the sake of promoting diversity, overcoming bias, and improving justice. Most of all, the choice should be consistent with the prestige of law, to earn and hold the prestige law deserves.
With these considerations in mind, many people might qualify and the President might choose to reward his friends. He should remember his selfish interest to be an effective leader.
The current court is a blot on the reputation of the court. It overturned state's rights and the will of the majority in 2000. It has ruled in the wage discrimination case that a crime is not a crime after you get away with it the first time. One of the justices has declared, innocence is not a defense in a criminal case -- and, mind you, this is the Supreme Court, the determining voice for the pursuit of justice under the law.
No, Pres. O. should NOT just appoint "an honest to goodness liberal"! It's the SUPREME COURT for heaven's sake! The supposedly NEUTRAL branch of government. The one we depend on to uphold our LAWS by PROPERLY interpreting them -- NOT by playing POLITICS with them! Haven't we had ENOUGH of justices ruling from the bench??? Can anyone say Scalia in 2000???? NONONONO!
I PRAY the president appoints the BEST JURIST, the WISEST PERSON, the MOST INTELLIGENT well-educated experienced sensible etcetcetc.
NOT the most political!!!! SOMEBODY has to STOP trying to destroy AMerica by turning it into their own personal agenda playground!
Perhaps someone should remind the commentator and his followers that David Souter was a conservative appointed by a Republican President, as was Earl Warren and several other liberal justices. Maybe it might be better if the President concentrated on appointing the most qualified person instead of trying to find an idealalogue who may end up not being as much in step with your beliefs as you hope for.
Everytime I hear a statement on what the president must do it makes me angry. These same voices were giving him advice during the election. He didn't follow it then, and I don't think he has to follow it now.
President Obama is one of the most intelligent men I have had the honor of calling president. He has proven time and time again that he has good judgement, humility, and a good heart. He has nothing to prove to me. I want him to do his best at all times. Period.
Everyone has a state in this appointment. I am a moderate and like many moderates and librals I have spent tireless hours in this campagin. This party can not afford to be like the republicans -fight and bicker over who is most cherished in the party. There's no time to state out territory and proclaim do this my way or else. There are programs to impliment . Some will not be the way I would like- either too libral or too conservative for my taste but I am willing to give to get.
I
I find it upsetting to hear the people in this party demand a libral,or a hispanic, or a woman, or whatever else. This president lived in the urban city of Chicago. Do you really think he doesn't know what real life is like for everyday people? Come on. Back off and let him make HIS decision
"President Obama should appoint an honest-to-goodness liberal to the Supreme Court."
Yes he should.
Will he?
No.
Why the heck should President Obama "waiver"?
That dumbell GWBush didn't. Bush got away with every crime and corruption, lie
and distortion, a fratbrat who was unqualified to be president of USA.
President Obama should do his job and appoint THE BEST AS HE SEES IT.
Obama stands for standard of excellence.
Obama is NOT a fake cowboy like Bush had to
be, a faked up persona to get himself elected by duped voters.
Obama will make the best choice, not the choice the
Republican SABOTEURS want.
Republicans have done enormous damage to America.
Americans have divorced Republicanism and its "values" of lies, corruption and evil.
Oliver,
Great post but I do disagree with you you about one issue:
Keep the Republicans OUT of health care! Good grief, we'll never get reform-- ever!
I hope Obama appoints a progressive liberal to the SC and not a "middle of the road" type to try to please everyone.
Some of his appointments thus far have been disappointments--the wall street treasury two and HHS Sebelius as she's against national health care.
If it happens that a progressive is appointed to the SC, I'll be greatful, but I'm not holding my breath.
I agree with your post. The Supreme Court is essentially a representative body of the American legal system. Sure, they are not representatives in terms of Congress, still, they represent us in our legal decisions and outcomes. To have the court stacked one way or the other, ideologically speaking, is a very bad thing. Right now, the SC is heavily slanted to the neocon ideology by a factor of 7-2, will be 6-2 when Souter leaves. Keep in mind, the only Dem appointees are Ginburg and Breyer. 6-3 will get us marginally better representation at least. Much better than 7-2 for sure.
I just hope that whoever it is, is a radically progressive liberal. Because they have been proven to be the only ones who can follow the laws to the letter. Anything else gaurantees we won't see any real change in our legal system or it's decisions.
Um, no...actually, it has been proven time and time again that if you want a justice who cares nothing for the letter of the law, you need a liberal. Indeed, the idea of the constitution as a living, breathing document is a polite way of saying that the letter of the law will be disregarded as necessary to adapt to the times. That is a fine and reasonable position, and one that I share, but I would never argue that liberal justices are the only ones who follow the letter of the law. Just the opposite is true--which is fine by me. The conservative wing of the court decided recently to bump the appeal of a pro se litigant because he had filed his appeal within the time frame specified by the court clerk, but out of time as far as the actual civil rules were concerned. The conservatives on the court prevailed, citing the letter of the law in support. The liberal justices, on the other hand, were appalled that the majority refused to fashion some equitable way around the deadline.
So, if you want the letter of the law, push for a conservative...
President Obama was elected because he looked like a "reasonable man" in the face of his partisan, know-nothing predecessor. That is because he basically is that reasonable man. Unfortunately for the left, he will make a "reasonable" appointment to the Supreme Court. Someone who has not left a trail of doctrinaire statements and decisions that brand that person as a partisan. That does not mean that the tenor of the court will change drastically, given the likelihood that there will be not conservative justices to leave the court during his tenure, even if he gets two terms. Let's face it, the most likely justices to leave, now that Souter is on the way out, are Stevens and Ginsberg. At least they can stop holding their breathe and leave, if they want to, while Obama is in the White House.
No, he should appointment an individual that interprets the law without any ideological bias.
Exactly. As a Democrat, I'm ashamed at the shortsightedness demonstrated by other Democrats politicizing the Court. President Obama promised us change, and an era of post-partisanship... It should be demonstrated by putting ideological bias aside for actual qualifications and substance. The Court should not be anyone's toy. This is a terrible, dangerous game to play.
When the nominee is questioned by republicans he or she will be asked about abortion, Gay Rights, Torture etc and the nominee should be asked those questions. Abortion rights are the law of the land, and equality for all Americans regardless of sexual orientation as well as a respect for the Constitution are not ideological viewpoints. For anyone to oppose these things makes that person unfit for the Supreme Court.
I find it hard to believe that anyone still marches robotically to a liberal or GOP ideology. How intelligent do you have to be to call for a "liberal" package be delivered to the high court? Not very. You just have to be a good yes-boy or yes-girl, do what you're told by party elders, dedicate your youthful stupidity to slogans, and pony up some cash and volunteer time. It's the least admirable of courses to be a partisan, and yet droves of people flock to the magnetism of power that connected partisans promise. It's not really about liberal principles for most Dems, nor is it about conservative principles for most conservatives. it's about belonging to their respective country clubs of favoritism. Notice that the Obama Administration has encountered reality, and now his fellow partisans are turning on him for failing to enact their ideologic fantasies. It's not too different on the Right. The GOP and Dem partisans don't really care about this country. They care about themselves and reshaping the country in their own bizarre, power hungry images. It's narcissism.
I agree. Torture is bizarre as well as criminalizing abortions and those doctors who do the procedure. There's a great difference between the left and right and if you'd bother to think about it, you'd realize it.
Thank you Steamboater.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
