A Love Supreme

Cross-posted at The October Protocol

It's more than just Coltrane's sickest album.  It's also what I feel for the highest court in the land.

And in light of that love, it's never too early to start handicapping the candidates' possible SCOTUS picks!

Supreme Court appointments worm their way into political discourse in strange ways.  Generally speaking, voters don't give a shit: no politician scores huge points by talking about the least accountable branch of government.  But to movement soldiers on the Right and the Left, control over the Court is the great prize.  In this bizarro campaign season, when both parties are facing the possibility of revolt, partisans of the candidates are using the Court to rally the troops.  Unite around Obama or turn the Court over to Scalia and Thomas!  Vote for McCain or permanently lose the chance to overturn Roe!

The current age of composition of the Court makes this election particularly crucial. The liberals are older, the conservatives younger: in January 2009, Stevens will be 88, Ginsburg  75, Breyer 70, and Souter 69.  Kennedy and Scalia will both be 72, Thomas 60, Alito 58, and Roberts a frisky 53.  The next president will likely be able to replace Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter (who hates being on the Court)--Breyer, Scalia, and Kennedy love being justices, and Thomas will hold on grimly until his seat is plucked from his cold, dead hands.  Three seats for the November victor is a legacy worth fighting for: FDR's picks were radically changing American jurisprudence and society for thirty years after his death, and Reagan's might end up doing the same.

Yesterday's NYT spotlights the differences between McCain's and Obama's philosophies on SCOTUS appointees.  Briefly: McCain has sold his soul to the right and pledges more of Roberts and Alito; Obama wants empathy.

Of course, these handy soundbites greatly simplify things.  Let's not forget that McCain, the champion of campaign finance reform, filed an amicus brief in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life to no avail, as the two justices he claims to want to emulate effectively gutted the Court's previous upholding of McCain-Feingold.  And Obama taught law for ten years at the University of Chicago, hardly a hotbed of empathy-based jurisprudence.  Campaign rhetoric is campaign rhetoric: I expect that both candidates would hew closer to the ideological center in their SCOTUS picks.

With that in mind, and without further ado, The October Protocol shortlists.

OBAMA

Sonia Sotomayor: Second Circuit (Clinton); 54 years old; appointed to the Southern District of New York by GHW Bush; would be the first Hispanic justice since Cardozo; reliably liberal; widely considered a front-runner if the Democrat wins.

Diane Wood: Seventh Circuit (Clinton); 58 years old; certified MILF; mentioned as possible pick for Kerry; more moderate than other liberal judges; academic star and respected judge; from Obama's home circuit.

Merrick Garland: D.C. Circuit (Clinton); 56 years old; oversaw the Oklahoma City and Unabomber investigations for the Clinton DOJ; considered relatively moderate.

Deval Patrick/Jennifer Granholm: Governors of Mass. (52) and Mich. (49), respectively.  Obama has floated the idea of nominating a politician in the mold of Earl Warren, former (Republican!) governor of California.  Patrick was head of the Civil Rights Division in the Clinton DOJ; Granholm was the Michigan attorney general.  Both have the legal chops and the real-world experience to add a shot of pragmatism to a Court made up entirely of former circuit court judges; both are also partisan Democrats, and might only add to the politicization of the Court.

Harold Koh: Dean of Yale Law School; 54 years old; clerked for Blackmun; Ass't Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor under Clinton; respected author and essayist on human rights and international law; criticized as a partisan Democrat; intellectual heavyweight; would be first Asian-American on the Court.

Other options: Kim Wardlaw (9th Cir.); Leah Ward Sears (Georgia Supreme Court); Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago); Barrington D. Parker (2nd Cir.).

MCCAIN

Michael McConnell: Tenth Circuit (GW Bush); 53 years old; prominent Constitutional scholar; widely cited as a likely pick to replace Rehnquist; proponent of originalism; supports a Constitutional amendment banning abortion--but then again, thinks it's the only way to do so.

Alex Kozinski: Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit (Reagan); 58 years old; distinguished essayist and legal scholar; idiosyncratic judge with a strong libertarian bent; not an `originalist' like Scalia or `batshit crazy' like Thomas; author of the greatest judicial line ever: "The parties are advised to chill."

Maureen Mahoney: Appellate lawyer, Latham & Wilkins; 54 years old; deputy Solicitor General under GHW Bush; distinguished advocate; argued for the University of Michigan in favor of its affirmative action program in Grutter v. Bollinger; highly competent attorney in the mode of John Roberts.

J. Michael Luttig: General counsel for Boeing; 54 years old; star of the conservative legal movement who resigned from the Fourth Circuit for a higher-paying job; often compared to Scalia in philosophy and temperament; clashed with Bush administration over executive prerogatives in the Jose Padilla case.

Edward Prado: Fifth Circuit (GW Bush); 61 years old; former federal public defender; touted as a moderate option to replace O'Connor; subject of a "Draft Prado" movement for a Latino Supreme Court justice not named Alberto Gonzalez.

Other options: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Cir.); Priscilla Owen (5th Cir.); Emilio Garza (5th Cir.); Eugene Volokh (UCLA and The Volokh Conspiracy).

And the doozy:

Richard Posner: Seventh Circuit; 69 years old; widely considered the most brilliant judge in America; immensely prolific scholar and philosopher; self-declared Pragmatist in the mode of Oliver Wendell Holmes; noted proponent of the Law & Economics school; supports both the president's power to order torture and the legalization of soft drugs; unquestioned intellect and lack of partisan identification make him a lock never to sit on the Supreme Court.


Poll
Who would you most like to see on the Court?
Sonia Sotomayor
Deval Patrick
Jennifer Granholm
Cass Sunstein
Diane Wood
Merrick Garland
Harold Koh
Richard Posner
J. Michael Luttig
Other

Votes: 6
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: A Love Supreme (none / 0)

Yep, my boner for Posner is embarrassingly huge.

Any potential nominees I left out?


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:02:01 PM EST

Ha ha ha (none / 0)

I don't have any others to add, but this is the first time I've laughed while browsing MyDD  in like a week.  Thank you for that and for moving on with issue related discussion


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:10:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Love Supreme (none / 0)

Posner is certainly an interesting read.  I have read quite a few of his opinions here in school.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:04:06 PM EST

Re: A Love Supreme (none / 0)

I read a lot of his opinions, too (just finished first-year) and I also just finished reading Overcoming Law.  He's snotty and dismissive of others at times, but I find a lot to like in his capital-p Pragmatism.  I just wish he didn't worship at the temple of economic efficiency quite so much.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:08:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Market For Babies (none / 0)

Killed whatever SCOTUS chances he may have had.


by JJE on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Market For Babies (none / 0)

This is true.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:31:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One of the things that bothers me (2.00 / 1)

When you bring up the SCOTUS is the line, pushed by both Obama and Clinton supporters (more among Clinton) that it's not a big deal because the Dems will be in the majority in the Senate and that there is no way an anti choice Justice will be confirmed. As the diarist mentioned, it's not likely that the leading contenders are going to be professionally/academically unqualified. There are both liberal and conservative legal scholars with sterling professional resumes/reputations. If we have another Roberts type candidate with a pristine reputation but who we know is anti choice, the Senate would be hard pressed to vote him down for no reason besides that they disagree with his/her views on abortion. That is why rallying around the Dem candidate is so important.


by highgrade on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:15:37 PM EST

Re: One of the things that bothers me (2.00 / 1)

I agree.  I find that argument particularly disingenuous, especially when it's accompanied by sentiments along the lines of "I'm too old to have kids anymore so let the young ones fight for Roe like I did."  Unfortunately you see that line popping up around here, too.

To McCain's credit, he voted to confirm both Breyer and Ginsburg because they were eminently qualified for the Court.  So were Roberts and Alito.  Liberals may decry them as part of a 'conservative takeover' but hey, that's what's at stake when we have elections.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Love Supreme (none / 0)

Frankly I think its time to get an elected official on the bench again.  Sandra Day O'Connor was one, but I don't believe any of the current Justices have ever held elected office (other than, perhaps, as an elected judge).

Having an associate Justice who understands the legislative and/or executive process is a good thing, and the Court has generally benefitted from that experience.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:27:18 PM EST

How bout the crying judge in the Anna Nicole saga? (none / 0)


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:48:05 PM EST

Re: How bout the crying judge (none / 0)

You mean this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lknVuCKX9 SI

Straight up hilarious.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:51:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That guy is good, and he doesn't look that old. nt (none / 0)


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I got a good one. (none / 0)

Judge Helene White, Michigan.

Helene N. White
U.S. Court of Appeals - Sixth Circuit

On April 15, 2008, President Bush nominated Helene N. White, a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals since 1993, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judge White was first nominated to the Sixth Circuit by President Clinton on January 7, 1997. Judge White's 1997-2001 nomination holds the record for longest federal judicial nomination in U.S. history never to have been acted upon [i.e. new world record for obstruction of confirmation by Republicans].  If confirmed, Judge White would replace Judge Susan Bieke Neilson, deceased.

As you can see, old habits die hard.  Although a compromise has finally been reached after years of Republican stonewalling, they're still not happy:

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats and the White House moved ahead Wednesday with a compromise to break a years-long impasse over approving judges for the federal appeals court based in Ohio.

But Senate Republicans seemed markedly unenthusiastic about the plan as the Judiciary Committee held hearings on two nominees to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit who are at the heart of the compromise. One nominee is Helene N. White, a liberal Democratic candidate originally put forward by President Bill Clinton, while the other is Raymond M. Kethledge, a conservative Republican chosen by the Bush White House.

(snip)

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said at the hearing that the compromise was a breakthrough in cooperation between the White House and Democrats. At the heart of the compromise were the efforts of Senator Carl M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who complained for years that Republicans had blocked a solution but said Wednesday that the deal "ended an era of gridlock."

Senator Levin spoke in favor of Ms. White, who has been a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals for 15 years. Ms. White was once married to a cousin of Mr. Levin.

(snip)

Committee Republicans criticized the plan, saying it would allow the Democrats to shut down the confirmation process before other Bush appeals court nominees could be considered. They also made plain that they disapproved of Judge White, although their reasons for doing so were less clear. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, criticized some of Judge White's rulings as a state judge.

It would be a fun confirmation process, just to see some Republican heads explode.  


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:04:16 PM EST

Re: I got a good one. (none / 0)

Good one--I wasn't familiar with her.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Love Supreme (none / 0)

LOVE SUPREeme

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzct2wY4q Yg


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:11:57 PM EST

Re: A Love Supreme (none / 0)

Delicious video.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Love Supreme (none / 0)

And I dig the Howl sig.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:36:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Love Supreme (none / 0)

...and
if you are at this time..
unable to embrace
change through
an acceptance
of LOVE Supreme..

maybe..just maybe..
next November..

Lift Obama high
as our Nominee..


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:19:13 PM EST

Feingold for SCOTUS (2.00 / 1)

As a recent (13 days ago) law school graduate who took a seminar called "The Politics of the Supreme Court", I must say that I love this topic!

As for the possible Democratic nominees you mention,  I agree that Sonia Sotomayor is the most likely pick and I wouldn't have a problem with that. However, I've been reading a biography of Earl Warren recently and it has been making me think that appointing having a former elected official, or several sitting on the bench can be a good a thing, so I think Granholm or Patrick would be good choices. Finally, I like Cass Sunstein, especially because he wrote a book about F.D.R's Second Bill of Rights, but I don't see him getting one of the first  vacancies from a Democratic president because any of the other candidates I mentioned would add to the diversity of the Court while Sunstein would be yet another white guy from academia.

That said, I didn't vote for any of the people I mentioned in the poll, rather I voted for other, because the person I'd most like to see on the Supreme Court (also the person I'd most like to see in the Oval Office) is Senator Russell Dana Feingold (D-WI). I think Feingold is the relatively rare politician who has actually thought pretty deeply about the Constitution and the relationships between the branches of government. I think this explains a lot of his votes in the Senate, ranging from his vote against the PATRIOT Act to his vote to confirm John Ashcroft. I also think Feingold would be a very appropriate replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens (my favorite current justice) as I think they are rather similar in being pegged as liberals by people who love to label people, when they really take a more independent approach to issues based on what they think the appropriate role of the government is.

That said, I think Feingold is an even less likely  nominee for justice than Sunstein; but I'll keep pushing Russ for that job (and President and Attorney General; but not Vice President).

And I'll respectfully dissent from your opinion of Judge Posner; having finished law school I'll be quite happy if I never have to read another word written by Posner ever again. I'm not a law and economics fan, and even when I like the conclusions Posner reaches, I seldom like the way he gets there. While I have no doubt that Judge Posner is smarter than me, I don't think he is as smart as he thinks he is (or as most legal scholars think he is). Anyone who thinks Mortal Kombat had a feminist ideology because the female characters can beat up the male ones is not going to get my vote for best legal mind in America.  


by Paul Simon Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:23:52 PM EST

Re: Feingold for SCOTUS (none / 0)

I totally feel you on getting an elected official on the Court.  Too many career judges and scholars is stifling: it needs a dash of political experience, real-world experience, and freshness.  I think a governor is better than a senator, though; much as I deeply respect Sen. Feingold, I think he's better off in the Senate.  Sliding an active participant in decades of partisan battles over to the Court is bad politics: he'd be ruling on laws he supported and opposed.  I wouldn't want a new justice to have to recuse him/herself should the Patriot Act come up.

I love Sunstein.  Would love to see him on the Court.  Would his closeness to Obama (Chicago, Samantha Powers, etc) help him or hurt him?  I'm not sure.

And I slightly exaggerated my love for Posner, but I'm probably in that stage of law school where you think he's the shit.  I feel like Law and Economics is, as he would agree, a valuable tool.  But it's not the only tool, and I feel like he weights the costs and benefits in his models with debatable values: the all-importance of efficiency, for one, and the unimportance of metaphysical values like respect and dignity.

I like his pragmatism, though, and his acknowledgment that ideas and values are tools, not Truths.  He's more self-aware in the books than in the opinions, I think, and he acknowledges that everyone's processes are subject to the biases and assumptions of who they are.  And his problem is that who he is, is an asshole.

Thanks for the response!


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.