The best political news in the last few weeks for liberals... other than President Obama (finally!) smacking down snarky Congressional Republicans last Friday... is the ABC News report today that "Lawyers for President Obama have been working behind the scenes to prepare for the possibility of one, and maybe two Supreme Court vacancies this spring." Per ABC News:
"Court watchers believe two of the more liberal members of the court, justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could decide to step aside for reasons of age and health. That would give the president his second and third chance to shape his legacy on the Supreme Court."
Obviously, I wish only excellent health and good personal fortune for all nine Supreme Court justices. I also fervently hope, though, that if justices decide to retire, that they do so while President Obama is in office, and preferably while he still has a large enough Senate Democratic majority to smoothly approve his nominations.
The President made a superb Court nomination with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. And I fully anticipate that his other potential nominations to the Supreme Court would be equally qualified, both in terms of education and professional qualifications, and in outlook, temperament, and life experiences.
The recent Citizens United decision, which destroyed all vestiges of ethical campaign-finance reform by opening the flood gates to unlimited corporate funding of partisan political advertising, made abundantly clear the urgency of appointing to our nation's highest judicial bench non-activist judges not hellbent on pleasing corporate interests whenever remotely feasible.
If, indeed, Associate Justices Ginsburg and Stevens do retire this summer, look for Senate Republicans to create as much unnecessary sturm-and-drung as possible to delay and drag approval of Obama's Court replacement nominations until the new, 112th Congress takes office in January 2011. And when Republicans will almost certainly have more Senate seats then they do in 2010.
If that occurs, liberals need to hope that President Obama continues his smart, coolly self-confident takedown of roadblock Republicans... rather than wilting back into passive non-leadership, as Mr. Obama disastrously did for much of 2009.
(Photo of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens arrive for a reception in honor of new Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the East Room of the White House August 12, 2009: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Comments
“Non-activist judges”, that’s rich! You can call people like Anton Scalia a lot of things, but “activist” isn’t one of them. Your hyperbole (and understanding) of the Citizens United case is misguided and flawed. Perhaps you should read the AFL-CIO’s amicus brief in favor of Citizens United and reconsider. The case was lost when the attorney for the FEC had to argue that the law would allow the FEC to ban the publishing of any book it thought was political in its sole discretion and superceeding any first amendment protections.
If Ginsberg and Stevens retire, Obama’s replacement appointments will have a negligible impact on the makeup of the court, other than to inject some younger blood into the liberal wing. Ginsberg is without question the most liberal member of the court, Obama would be hard pressed to find a more liberal replacement. Likewise, though Stevens was appointed by a Republican president (Ford, I think) he’s been a reliable vote for the liberal wing of the court for 2 decades.
With respect to the confirmation process, you reap what you sow. It was Democrats that subverted the confirmation process for the Supreme Court. Joe Biden admitted it in the Vice Presidential debate in 2008. He was a part of the gang that smeared Bork’s character because he didn’t like his legal views. Biden even mentions having some measure of regret.
The advise and consent clause was never meant to give Senators a veto if they disagreed with the jurisprudence of the President’s pick. Alexander Hamilton provides an excellent 1st hand analysis of the purpose of the Senate’s advise and consent power in Federalist Paper 76. Read it.
Lastly, look at the nature of the confirmation battles over the last 25 years. All the most vicious, divisive, hateful campaigns have been waged by Democrats against Republican appointments. Compare Gingsberg’s confirmation to Bork, Scalia, or even Roberts. She’s every bit as liberal as they are conservative. If you want to know why you’re concerned about any upcoming confirmations, look in the mirror.