Controversy regarding Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, continues for Senators. Kagan has never served on a bench, and therefore, has no “paper trial” for Senators to review not to mention the fact that she may not be able to vote on a number of cases over the next year due to her previous position as Solicitor General.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin June 28th. Last Thursday morning, May 20th, to many Senators dismay news that the tens of thousands of documents relating to her service in the Clinton White House may not be produced before the start of her confirmation hearing. These documents are the missing link concerning her stance on issues that otherwise could be evaluated had she served as a judge.
Earlier in the week the staff of the National Archives and Records Administration had begun combing through tens of millions of papers and e-mails at Bill Clinton's presidential library in Little Rock to find the relevant files, and plans to start turning them over to the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 4, according to Archivist David S. Ferriero.
Julie Hirshfeld Davis reported that Republicans and Democrats believe notes, memos, e-mails and other material from Kagan's tenure at the White House could provide insight into her opinions. She said, “One memo Kagan wrote in 1997 has already emerged and become fodder for critics on the right and left. In it, Kagan urged Clinton to back a ban on late-term abortions, an attempt at a compromise designed to head off passage of a more restrictive bill. Advocates of abortion rights opposed the compromise because it would have limited a woman's ability to terminate a pregnancy. Abortion rights foes also blasted the proposal as an attempt to gut stronger restrictions. In one-on-one meetings on Capitol Hill, Kagan has told senators she considers abortion rights to be settled law — a stock response among judicial nominees of all political stripes.”
In addition, even if Senators can access this vital information, they must then take into account that Kagan will have to disqualify herself from ruling on a significant number of cases if she is confirmed. That's because for the last year, she has served as the government's chief appellate advocate, and the government is a party in roughly 40 percent of the cases heard each term.
In despite of the fact that she will not rule in the first year on the bench most speculate that Obama hopes that Kagan will balance as the next liberal voice in the conservative leaning Court. David Axelrod said "The president feels strongly she has the qualities of a leader," as reported by Chip Reid from CBS News.com. Reid went on to say “I think what they're trying to say with their somewhat cryptic talking points is that they think she's so smart and so engaging that she'll be able to find new ways to decide important cases that keep the court from dividing 5-4 along rigid ideological lines. How she'll do that they didn't even give a hint. But they seem confident she can shift the court in a more progressive direction with creative new arguments, and that she'll be there long enough to make a profound difference on the direction of the Court.”
Although these points are major, most feel that Kagan is still a “safe bet,” Her overall experience in all three branches government, and time as the first female Dean of Harvard Law School show that she has ample knowledge of law and policy. Michael Fauntroy, a professor of Public Policy at George Mason University said, "The key thing is that she is very certain to be confirmed to the court unless the left rises up in opposition, and today that hasn't happened with enough force for the White House to pull back from the nomination."
References:
topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/.../index.html
www.daylife.com/article/03tp5upa2u0Tt?q=Politics
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/.../kagan-speech-rationing/
www.thenewstribune.com/2010/.../archivist-obama-wont-block-kagan.html
www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004584-503544.html
www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=1070
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Posting 7
This Monday, Elena Kagan stepped aside from her post of Solicitor general. Although Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan lacks a ‘judicial paper trail’, there are a large number of documents from when she served as a lawyer and political adviser to President Clinton. In fact there are over 160,000 pages of material for the Senators to look over. This pile of documents should give the Senators a pretty good understanding, or at least a better understanding of where Kagan stands in her political views. “Sen. John Cornyn said today that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing should not be held until senators have a chance to review documents.” It is apparent that the Senate will be relying on these documents to get a better understanding of Kagan as the Nomination process continues.
Over the past weeks Kagan has been “Following in the tradition of past Supreme Court nominees.., visit[ing] the offices of key senators for private meetings lasting about 30 minutes each.” Although Kagan has been meeting and speaking with Senate members, she has said almost nothing publicly, ignoring questions from reporters as she walked through the halls of Congress.
Although she may have declined to answer questions from reporters, she has won over the Senate majority leader Harry Reid, and minority leader Mitch McConnell. Originally McConnell was worried that Kagan would be a ‘rubber stamp’ for the ‘Obama Democrats’, but he was seemingly won over after a meeting with her. Reid was even more impressed with Kagan, describing her as “the right choice to replace Justice Stevens" And pledging to make her path to the Supreme Court as “smooth as possible.”
A Washington post article remarked on Kagan’s seeming silence stating that “[i]t's not yet clear if Kagan is offering a "repetition of platitudes," the phrase the nominee herself used in a 1995 article to describe how Supreme Court nominees speak to the senators during the confirmation process.” But, it does seem that she is saying enough, seeing how she has seemingly impressed both Senate leaders.
Although Kagan was never a judge, she was nominated by the Clinton administration to the federal circuit court for the District of Columbia in 1999. However, she was never confirmed by the senate, and her appointment expired with the Clinton presidency. Hopefully this time, Kagan will have better fortune in confirmation, this time, by a Democrat Majority senate.
Sources referenced
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051200332.html
http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=052010&newsid=228
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nationworld/stories/051910dnnatcornynkagan.167797f4.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/elena_kagan_does_not_fear_locu.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hfm-ZgbV3pWFVmRFbJgpA4THs5kQD9FPC0D00
Over the past weeks Kagan has been “Following in the tradition of past Supreme Court nominees.., visit[ing] the offices of key senators for private meetings lasting about 30 minutes each.” Although Kagan has been meeting and speaking with Senate members, she has said almost nothing publicly, ignoring questions from reporters as she walked through the halls of Congress.
Although she may have declined to answer questions from reporters, she has won over the Senate majority leader Harry Reid, and minority leader Mitch McConnell. Originally McConnell was worried that Kagan would be a ‘rubber stamp’ for the ‘Obama Democrats’, but he was seemingly won over after a meeting with her. Reid was even more impressed with Kagan, describing her as “the right choice to replace Justice Stevens" And pledging to make her path to the Supreme Court as “smooth as possible.”
A Washington post article remarked on Kagan’s seeming silence stating that “[i]t's not yet clear if Kagan is offering a "repetition of platitudes," the phrase the nominee herself used in a 1995 article to describe how Supreme Court nominees speak to the senators during the confirmation process.” But, it does seem that she is saying enough, seeing how she has seemingly impressed both Senate leaders.
Although Kagan was never a judge, she was nominated by the Clinton administration to the federal circuit court for the District of Columbia in 1999. However, she was never confirmed by the senate, and her appointment expired with the Clinton presidency. Hopefully this time, Kagan will have better fortune in confirmation, this time, by a Democrat Majority senate.
Sources referenced
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051200332.html
http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=052010&newsid=228
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nationworld/stories/051910dnnatcornynkagan.167797f4.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/elena_kagan_does_not_fear_locu.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hfm-ZgbV3pWFVmRFbJgpA4THs5kQD9FPC0D00
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Post 6
As Elena Kagan is examined by Congress after Monday’s nomination from President Obama, issues about her lack of a paper trail has becoming the focal point for many. As reported May 12 by James Oliphant and Lisa Mascaro of Tribune Washington Bureau, “Elena Kagan… has never been a judge and until recently had never argued a case in court. Ever since her nomination was announced this week, Republicans and Democrats have been debating whether that matters.”
"My view is that her experience is very thin," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, after an hour-long meeting with Kagan. "She indicated she felt she had the experience to do the job." This comment was balanced by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the assistant Senate majority leader when he was quoted, "Many people come to the court from many walks of life," Durbin said. "I don't hold it against her that she hasn't spent a lifetime as a litigator."
All the current judges that sit on the court were previously federal appeals judges. When searching for a nominee Obama was encouraged to find a candidate with a different kind of background. He found that in Kagan who has spent most of her career as a law professor, Clinton White House lawyer and dean of Harvard Law School. Her experience in the courtroom is limited to the six cases she’s argued as solicitor general.
Kagan made her second round on Capitol Hill Thursday and it looks like, in spite of the “paper trail issue,” there will be no filibuster. It seems she may have gained the support of key Republicans. Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins dubbed Kagan "very impressive," and suggested she would not stand for fellow Republicans blocking a confirmation vote. "At this point, I do not see any grounds for a filibuster," she said.
Although, this is not for sure. Most have expected that a liberal would be raised to take the place of John Paul Stevens, to maintain the balance on the Court and because Obama is a Democrat. Some worry that this union may go too far. "Americans want to know that Ms. Kagan will be independent," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a Senate speech as Obama's Supreme Court pick began a series of courtesy visits with senators who will decide whether to confirm her. "It's my hope that the Obama administration doesn't think the ideal Supreme Court nominee is someone who would rubber stamp its policies," McConnell said. "But this nomination does raise the question. And it's a question that needs to be answered."
The only other issue that could block Kagan from becoming the next Supreme Court Justice is that Republicans have accused her of being anti-armed forces because as dean of Harvard Law School she followed the school policy of limiting access to recruiters. Many have said that this accusation is unfounded and is grasping at straws.
The battle for a seat on the highest court in the land will continue on, with Congress sorting out issues and debates to present to Kagan. Everyone is digging around, trying to find out what Kagan is all about. Because she was never a judge, she is a hard candidate to pinpoint. She has made no judgments which Congress can easily agree or disagree with. It will continue to be interesting to watch the process unfold with the “lack of paper trail.”
References:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/12/nation/la-na-kagan-20100513
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/05/14/2010-05-14_gop_leaders_coming_over_to_kagan_side.html#ixzz0nvxpccaP
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTKE6490DU20100512?type=policticsNews
"My view is that her experience is very thin," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, after an hour-long meeting with Kagan. "She indicated she felt she had the experience to do the job." This comment was balanced by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the assistant Senate majority leader when he was quoted, "Many people come to the court from many walks of life," Durbin said. "I don't hold it against her that she hasn't spent a lifetime as a litigator."
All the current judges that sit on the court were previously federal appeals judges. When searching for a nominee Obama was encouraged to find a candidate with a different kind of background. He found that in Kagan who has spent most of her career as a law professor, Clinton White House lawyer and dean of Harvard Law School. Her experience in the courtroom is limited to the six cases she’s argued as solicitor general.
Kagan made her second round on Capitol Hill Thursday and it looks like, in spite of the “paper trail issue,” there will be no filibuster. It seems she may have gained the support of key Republicans. Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins dubbed Kagan "very impressive," and suggested she would not stand for fellow Republicans blocking a confirmation vote. "At this point, I do not see any grounds for a filibuster," she said.
Although, this is not for sure. Most have expected that a liberal would be raised to take the place of John Paul Stevens, to maintain the balance on the Court and because Obama is a Democrat. Some worry that this union may go too far. "Americans want to know that Ms. Kagan will be independent," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a Senate speech as Obama's Supreme Court pick began a series of courtesy visits with senators who will decide whether to confirm her. "It's my hope that the Obama administration doesn't think the ideal Supreme Court nominee is someone who would rubber stamp its policies," McConnell said. "But this nomination does raise the question. And it's a question that needs to be answered."
The only other issue that could block Kagan from becoming the next Supreme Court Justice is that Republicans have accused her of being anti-armed forces because as dean of Harvard Law School she followed the school policy of limiting access to recruiters. Many have said that this accusation is unfounded and is grasping at straws.
The battle for a seat on the highest court in the land will continue on, with Congress sorting out issues and debates to present to Kagan. Everyone is digging around, trying to find out what Kagan is all about. Because she was never a judge, she is a hard candidate to pinpoint. She has made no judgments which Congress can easily agree or disagree with. It will continue to be interesting to watch the process unfold with the “lack of paper trail.”
References:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/12/nation/la-na-kagan-20100513
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/05/14/2010-05-14_gop_leaders_coming_over_to_kagan_side.html#ixzz0nvxpccaP
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTKE6490DU20100512?type=policticsNews
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Post 5
On Monday President Obama announced his nomination of the Solicitor General, Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court vacancy. Now that she has nomination, we will be concentrating solely on Kagan and the senate confirmation process she will be facing.
President Obama had many good things to say about Kagan after he announced his choice, calling her a “trailblazing leader” and noted that she is “…is widely regarded as one of the nation's foremost legal minds.” President Obama should know, they both taught at the University of Chicago law school in the early 90’s.
Although the President may have a lot to say about Kagan, “Republican senators said they would give the nomination a long, hard look…” Although this may be the case, the democrats do hold the majority, so a confirmation should be likely. Still, there is a debate going on as to whether she will have a contentious nomination, or a smooth one. A “CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford predicted that the battle would not be contentious at all.” Even so, there are several issues that the senate will be questioning Kagan about. One of the most sensitive will most likely be her attempts to keep military recruiters off campus because of her objections to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy while she was dean of Harvard law school.
Another issue the Senate may have with Kagan is her lack of a judicial record; she has never been a judge before. This lack of a paper trail will likely lead to many questions from the senators on the panel, without such records, they have no idea of her a potential judicial philosophy. This lack of a paper trail, however, shouldn’t prove to be an insurmountable barrier; many Supreme Court justices in the past had not been judges before their nominations. In fact it may work in her favor; there have been grumblings of a “judicial monastery” for some time.
There is still a hint of mystery around this candidate, supposedly “Kagan has mastered the fine art of nearly perfect ideological inscrutability. Even Jeffrey Toobin, her law school study partner, has virtually no idea what she really believes.” However, for all her ‘mysteries’ she is supposed to be “a proponent of bipartisanship, of "understanding before she disagrees" and of seeking "common ground" according to the President.
Other points of interest about Kagan’s nomination are that she will be the third Jewish member and the third woman to serve on the current court. She will also be the fourth woman nominated to the court in its long history.
Sources Referenced.
http://www.slate.com/id/2253496/?GT1=38001
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100511/ap_on_go_su_co/us_obama_supreme_court
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36967616/ns/politics-supreme_court/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/09/obama-reportedly-nominate-solicitor-gen-elena-kagan-supreme-court/#discussion-form
President Obama had many good things to say about Kagan after he announced his choice, calling her a “trailblazing leader” and noted that she is “…is widely regarded as one of the nation's foremost legal minds.” President Obama should know, they both taught at the University of Chicago law school in the early 90’s.
Although the President may have a lot to say about Kagan, “Republican senators said they would give the nomination a long, hard look…” Although this may be the case, the democrats do hold the majority, so a confirmation should be likely. Still, there is a debate going on as to whether she will have a contentious nomination, or a smooth one. A “CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford predicted that the battle would not be contentious at all.” Even so, there are several issues that the senate will be questioning Kagan about. One of the most sensitive will most likely be her attempts to keep military recruiters off campus because of her objections to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy while she was dean of Harvard law school.
Another issue the Senate may have with Kagan is her lack of a judicial record; she has never been a judge before. This lack of a paper trail will likely lead to many questions from the senators on the panel, without such records, they have no idea of her a potential judicial philosophy. This lack of a paper trail, however, shouldn’t prove to be an insurmountable barrier; many Supreme Court justices in the past had not been judges before their nominations. In fact it may work in her favor; there have been grumblings of a “judicial monastery” for some time.
There is still a hint of mystery around this candidate, supposedly “Kagan has mastered the fine art of nearly perfect ideological inscrutability. Even Jeffrey Toobin, her law school study partner, has virtually no idea what she really believes.” However, for all her ‘mysteries’ she is supposed to be “a proponent of bipartisanship, of "understanding before she disagrees" and of seeking "common ground" according to the President.
Other points of interest about Kagan’s nomination are that she will be the third Jewish member and the third woman to serve on the current court. She will also be the fourth woman nominated to the court in its long history.
Sources Referenced.
http://www.slate.com/id/2253496/?GT1=38001
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100511/ap_on_go_su_co/us_obama_supreme_court
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36967616/ns/politics-supreme_court/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/09/obama-reportedly-nominate-solicitor-gen-elena-kagan-supreme-court/#discussion-form
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Blog 4
President Obama is expected to make his announcement of a nominee to replace the retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens early next week. Others have reported that a decision will definitely be made no later than May 26, 2010. Most journalist are reporting a strong favor towards Solicitor General Elena Kagan, over the others that Obama has held private interviews with in the past few weeks. He has also conducted interviews with three federal appeals court judges — Diane Wood, 59; Merrick Garland, 57; and Sidney Thomas, 56, who are considered the other main contenders. Obama conducted interviews with ten potential nominees but these are the major candidates.
But what is President Obama basing his decision on? What criteria should the candidates meet? What issues are being discussed during these interviews? Obama said he would appoint a justice who “knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens,”
The editors of the New York Times asked a panel of professionals in late April “What should the president’s calculation be in balancing merit, diversity and political experience?” Glenn Harlan Reynolds is the Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee replied “The conventional wisdom is that Elena Kagan would be a smart choice, because her highly successful tenure as dean at Harvard Law demonstrates an ability to bring together people of varying ideologies, which bodes well for her ability to put together coalitions on the Supreme Court. Unlike some conventional wisdom, this is probably right.” Olati Johnson, an associate professor of law at Columbia Law School, adds “Sonia Sotomayor added ethnic diversity to the bench, but, even more, her background as a trial court judge. So this time — why not add someone with substantial experience in legislative or executive branch politics? Such a nominee might bring consensus-building and negotiation skills to the court. She might help the court be less “imperial” as many claim — instead advancing constitutional values but with proper respect and deference for the operation of political branches. A large portion of Supreme Court cases involve statutory interpretation, administrative law and separation of powers. Campaign finance and other political participation issues will likely continue to feature prominently in the years to come. A serious thinker, with substantial experience in our democratic institutions, could only enhance the court.”
As Solicitor General, Kagan “has exceptionally good preparation for a job as a justice,” said Lincoln Caplan, the author of “The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. “The S.G.’s office reads the Supreme Court, both its personnel and its opinions, as closely as anyone in the universe,” Mr. Caplan said. The office’s approach is, moreover, a practical one, aimed at capturing the votes of a majority of the nine justices. “The S.G. learns to count to five,” he said.
Although Kagan is not a shoo in, as some felt Sonia Sotomayor was, she seems poised to be an easy approval candidate for Obama to elect. As far as merit, she has no paper trail and exceedingly good training as Solicitor General. She was approved by Congress for her current position, so it seems likely that she will be approved again. There is more to nomination than merit though. Personal stance on a variety of issues is key to being placed on the Supreme Court. We will discuss the “hot button” topics concerning this nomination next.
Sources Cited:
roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/.../who-should-be-the-next-justice/
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/.../obama-promises-no-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominee/
roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/supreme-court/
legaltimes.typepad.com/.../2010/.../obama-nears-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee.html
But what is President Obama basing his decision on? What criteria should the candidates meet? What issues are being discussed during these interviews? Obama said he would appoint a justice who “knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens,”
The editors of the New York Times asked a panel of professionals in late April “What should the president’s calculation be in balancing merit, diversity and political experience?” Glenn Harlan Reynolds is the Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee replied “The conventional wisdom is that Elena Kagan would be a smart choice, because her highly successful tenure as dean at Harvard Law demonstrates an ability to bring together people of varying ideologies, which bodes well for her ability to put together coalitions on the Supreme Court. Unlike some conventional wisdom, this is probably right.” Olati Johnson, an associate professor of law at Columbia Law School, adds “Sonia Sotomayor added ethnic diversity to the bench, but, even more, her background as a trial court judge. So this time — why not add someone with substantial experience in legislative or executive branch politics? Such a nominee might bring consensus-building and negotiation skills to the court. She might help the court be less “imperial” as many claim — instead advancing constitutional values but with proper respect and deference for the operation of political branches. A large portion of Supreme Court cases involve statutory interpretation, administrative law and separation of powers. Campaign finance and other political participation issues will likely continue to feature prominently in the years to come. A serious thinker, with substantial experience in our democratic institutions, could only enhance the court.”
As Solicitor General, Kagan “has exceptionally good preparation for a job as a justice,” said Lincoln Caplan, the author of “The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. “The S.G.’s office reads the Supreme Court, both its personnel and its opinions, as closely as anyone in the universe,” Mr. Caplan said. The office’s approach is, moreover, a practical one, aimed at capturing the votes of a majority of the nine justices. “The S.G. learns to count to five,” he said.
Although Kagan is not a shoo in, as some felt Sonia Sotomayor was, she seems poised to be an easy approval candidate for Obama to elect. As far as merit, she has no paper trail and exceedingly good training as Solicitor General. She was approved by Congress for her current position, so it seems likely that she will be approved again. There is more to nomination than merit though. Personal stance on a variety of issues is key to being placed on the Supreme Court. We will discuss the “hot button” topics concerning this nomination next.
Sources Cited:
roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/.../who-should-be-the-next-justice/
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/.../obama-promises-no-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominee/
roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/supreme-court/
legaltimes.typepad.com/.../2010/.../obama-nears-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee.html
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Judicial Reveiw. Blog Posting 3
Blog posting 3
According to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, President Obama is “close’ to making a choice of a nominee to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. In fact, Gibbs didn’t rule out the possibility that President Obama could announce his choice of a Supreme Court nominee as soon as this week.
According to The Wall Street Journal, President Obama has interviewed Solicitor General Elena Kagan last Friday and Merrick B. Garland last month. Sidney R. Thomas has also been interviewed, but it was not clear as to when exactly. When President Obama last elected a Supreme court Justice, he held interviews with four potential candidates, one of which is now Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It is highly likely then, that President Obama is strongly considering the potential candidates that he personally interviews.
Let’s take a look at the political and personal leanings of potential nominees that the President has already interviewed.
Elena Kagan, currently the solicitor general, has a more conservative outlook than retiring Justice Stevens, but is seemingly well prepared for the job. She has degrees from Princeton, Worcester, Oxford and Harvard and has a long standing interest in administrative law. She has also been considered a potential candidate for the Supreme Court for years, and especially now since there is a democratic President in office. However, it stands to reason that beings Kagan is more conservative than Stevens, there is potential for party conflict because it would upset the balance of views currently on the Supreme Court.
Merrick B. Garland is currently a DC circuit judge, nominated by President Clinton to replace Abner J. Mikva. Garland’s Judicial Philosophy is moderate, more so than that of Justice Sevens, which could adversely affect his chances of nomination, or confirmation by the senate. However, Garland is still a strong potential nominee for the Supreme Court.
Sidney R. Thomas is currently a judge in the United States court of appeals for the ninth circuit, nominated by President Clinton. Thomas has “western roots,” a native of Montana he worked at a law firm in billings and was an adjunct law professor at a community college in Billings. Several sources hint that Thomas does not have any apparent liberal or conservative biases.
Of the three justices, there is no clear indication at this point as to which of the three (if it will be) is closer to the nomination. There are other diversity and religious issues that may swing the Obama administration to one candidate over the other. These issues will be discussed in later postings.
Sources Cited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_B._Garland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Wood
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/03/gibbs-wont-rule-out-supreme-court-nominee-this-week/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Runyan_Thomas
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/05/obama-nears-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/20/obama-holds-talks-supreme-court-candidates/
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/03/kagan-garland-sit-down-with-obama/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4338216
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/04/merrick-garland-supreme-court.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/04/13/source_judge_sidney_thomas_on_supreme_court_list/?page=2
According to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, President Obama is “close’ to making a choice of a nominee to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. In fact, Gibbs didn’t rule out the possibility that President Obama could announce his choice of a Supreme Court nominee as soon as this week.
According to The Wall Street Journal, President Obama has interviewed Solicitor General Elena Kagan last Friday and Merrick B. Garland last month. Sidney R. Thomas has also been interviewed, but it was not clear as to when exactly. When President Obama last elected a Supreme court Justice, he held interviews with four potential candidates, one of which is now Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It is highly likely then, that President Obama is strongly considering the potential candidates that he personally interviews.
Let’s take a look at the political and personal leanings of potential nominees that the President has already interviewed.
Elena Kagan, currently the solicitor general, has a more conservative outlook than retiring Justice Stevens, but is seemingly well prepared for the job. She has degrees from Princeton, Worcester, Oxford and Harvard and has a long standing interest in administrative law. She has also been considered a potential candidate for the Supreme Court for years, and especially now since there is a democratic President in office. However, it stands to reason that beings Kagan is more conservative than Stevens, there is potential for party conflict because it would upset the balance of views currently on the Supreme Court.
Merrick B. Garland is currently a DC circuit judge, nominated by President Clinton to replace Abner J. Mikva. Garland’s Judicial Philosophy is moderate, more so than that of Justice Sevens, which could adversely affect his chances of nomination, or confirmation by the senate. However, Garland is still a strong potential nominee for the Supreme Court.
Sidney R. Thomas is currently a judge in the United States court of appeals for the ninth circuit, nominated by President Clinton. Thomas has “western roots,” a native of Montana he worked at a law firm in billings and was an adjunct law professor at a community college in Billings. Several sources hint that Thomas does not have any apparent liberal or conservative biases.
Of the three justices, there is no clear indication at this point as to which of the three (if it will be) is closer to the nomination. There are other diversity and religious issues that may swing the Obama administration to one candidate over the other. These issues will be discussed in later postings.
Sources Cited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_B._Garland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Wood
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/03/gibbs-wont-rule-out-supreme-court-nominee-this-week/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Runyan_Thomas
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/05/obama-nears-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/20/obama-holds-talks-supreme-court-candidates/
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/03/kagan-garland-sit-down-with-obama/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4338216
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/04/merrick-garland-supreme-court.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/04/13/source_judge_sidney_thomas_on_supreme_court_list/?page=2
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The Judical Reveiw. Posting Two
The retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens this year brings up many difficult questions; specifically it brings up a question of partisanship. The appointment of a new justice to the Supreme Court will be a very partisan charged decision. Justice Stevens leaves a legacy of being a “cautious” liberal; and his judicial philosophy through the years has indeed been more liberal than conservative even though he was nominated by a Republican president.
Beings that Stevens was a liberal leaning Justice, President Obama will have a difficult opening to fill. He can either replace Stevens with another liberal, or he can follow the road less traveled, and place a conservative. If he were to place a conservative it would bring down a long standing trend and help to support bipartisanship.
Presidents typically choose their candidates based not only on merit but also according to ideological views. Most presidents nominate someone who is of their party. Judges decide cases starting with statutes, or laws passed by the legislature. It is for this reason that nominating someone with similar views to the president is important. Long after the president is out of office, the judge will still be impacting statutes and therefore, the law. This power is far reaching beyond a four year presidency.
Stevens is anomaly is this regard. Raised by President Ford, a conservative Republican, he had a moderately conservative record. Early in his tenure on the Supreme Court, Stevens had a relatively moderate voting record. He voted to reinstate capital punishment in the United States and opposed race-based admissions programs such as the program at issue in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). But on the more conservative Rehnquist Court, Stevens joined the more liberal Justices on issues such as abortion rights, gay rights and federalism. In a 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns found Stevens the most liberal member of the Court
Obama has said that he plans to move quickly to nominate a replacement. According to an article from FOXnews.com the leading candidates to replace Stevens are Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, and federal appellate Judges Merrick Garland, 57, and Diane Wood, 59.
Next, we will be examining these candidates closely. Many Republicans have expressed that they will fight to block any extreme liberals from the courtship. Whatever Obama’s choice, the next steps in this replacement will be very exciting and have a large political impact.
Sources Referenced:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/09/supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-retire/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/us/politics/11supreme.html
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/04/17/1900062/lessons-learned-shape-obamas-court.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/20/brazile.justice.stevens/index.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0409/Filling-John-Paul-Stevens-Supreme-Court-vacancy-big-test-for-Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens
Beings that Stevens was a liberal leaning Justice, President Obama will have a difficult opening to fill. He can either replace Stevens with another liberal, or he can follow the road less traveled, and place a conservative. If he were to place a conservative it would bring down a long standing trend and help to support bipartisanship.
Presidents typically choose their candidates based not only on merit but also according to ideological views. Most presidents nominate someone who is of their party. Judges decide cases starting with statutes, or laws passed by the legislature. It is for this reason that nominating someone with similar views to the president is important. Long after the president is out of office, the judge will still be impacting statutes and therefore, the law. This power is far reaching beyond a four year presidency.
Stevens is anomaly is this regard. Raised by President Ford, a conservative Republican, he had a moderately conservative record. Early in his tenure on the Supreme Court, Stevens had a relatively moderate voting record. He voted to reinstate capital punishment in the United States and opposed race-based admissions programs such as the program at issue in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). But on the more conservative Rehnquist Court, Stevens joined the more liberal Justices on issues such as abortion rights, gay rights and federalism. In a 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns found Stevens the most liberal member of the Court
Obama has said that he plans to move quickly to nominate a replacement. According to an article from FOXnews.com the leading candidates to replace Stevens are Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, and federal appellate Judges Merrick Garland, 57, and Diane Wood, 59.
Next, we will be examining these candidates closely. Many Republicans have expressed that they will fight to block any extreme liberals from the courtship. Whatever Obama’s choice, the next steps in this replacement will be very exciting and have a large political impact.
Sources Referenced:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/09/supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-retire/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/us/politics/11supreme.html
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/04/17/1900062/lessons-learned-shape-obamas-court.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/20/brazile.justice.stevens/index.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0409/Filling-John-Paul-Stevens-Supreme-Court-vacancy-big-test-for-Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)