Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Obama’s court pick to be shaped by his experience

May 13, 2009

Advertisement

— President Barack Obama wants a Supreme Court nominee who is not only schooled in the law but passionate about how it affects people’s lives, a scholar willing to decide a case from the heart when the constitutional answer is elusive.

In many ways, he is in pursuit of someone like himself.

Obama’s background — community organizer in Chicago, president of the Harvard Law Review, instructor of constitutional law, member of the Senate during two Supreme Court confirmations — is driving his thinking about whom he will pick. He is not just setting the tone; he is engaged in the search.

“I don’t think you’ll see, in picking a Supreme Court nominee, that the president is going to look for a recommendation and agree or disagree with that,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in an interview about Obama’s deliberations. “You have a president who understands and has studied many of these issues — even taught them. This is a process that will be decided ultimately by him.”

Obama is deciding among a small group of candidates to replace Justice David Souter, who is retiring next month. The White House is not confirming any names but cautioning that no media organization has reported every person under serious review.

What’s known is that Obama is likely to choose a female candidate for a nine-member court that has just one woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He is expected to choose a relatively young person who could serve for decades and may opt for someone from outside the traditional path of the federal appellate system.

One other characteristic is critical.

“I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes,” Obama said recently.

An announcement is not expected this week but will likely come in May. Gibbs said Tuesday that the White House would prefer to have the confirmation wrapped up before the Senate’s August break, which would leave June and July for reviewing the candidate, hearings and voting.

Today, Obama meets with senators from both parties who will be deeply involved in the confirmation process.

Outside groups and even the Senate’s newest Democrat, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, have urged Obama to choose a female, arguing that women are underrepresented on the court. Other organizations have pressed for the president to select a Hispanic.

Obama has set out his fundamental criteria: Someone who is dedicated to the rule of law, honors constitutional traditions and respects what he calls the appropriate limits of a justice’s role. He said he wants a person with an excellent record and a sharp, independent mind.

Yet the X factor might be his other criterion — a sense of court decisions in the context of daily lives.

It is why Obama said he voted against Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 despite acknowledging that Roberts was plenty qualified to sit on the high court. Obama said then that adherence to precedent and rules of interpretation only go so far.

In the toughest cases, Obama said, “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”

In essence, Obama wants someone who gets it.

Comments

madmike 4 years, 11 months ago

Unfortunately, I expect him to pick an "activist" judge that wants to legislate from the bench instead of interpet the constitution.

0

Andrew Stahmer 4 years, 11 months ago

It is extremely disturbing to think about obama chosing Supreme Court Justices--especially when you consider his complete irreverence towards our Constitution (which irronically he is supposed to protect!)

It's also alarming when you consider how his administration has handeled some recent issues:

This month White House press secretary Robert Gibbs revealed obama's third opinion on gay marriage by stating "the president believes this is an issue that's best addressed by the states," thus changing his opinion to a states' rights issue from his other two opinions. In 1996, obama, while running for state senator, stated he "would fight efforts to prohibit such [gay] marriages." And in 2007, obama stated in a Chicago Tribune interview: "my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Then, o-bonehead cut from his budget 100% of the federal funds states use to incarcerate illegal alien felons (murderers, rapists, kidnappers, armed robbers, drug smugglers, pedophiles, etc.) who were able to enter the country because of the federal government's refusal to secure the borders. obama's reason for doing so was to force states to limit or eliminate their efforts to arrest and imprison illegal aliens and to release those already imprisoned.

Back on the 9th Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command, stated that al Qaeda is headquartered in Pakistan, including Osama bin Laden and the global terrorist group's senior leadership. Despite this admission, and despite his repeated promises to the contrary and his sworn duty, obama now says he will not attack al Qaeda with U.S. forces without the permission of the Pakistani government, which that government refuses to grant.

Using Chicago "machine" tactics as a blatant payback for corrupt union support in California, the obamassiah ordered California to not dare cut the wages of state union workers or else his regime would cut huge sums to the state in federal aid. The blackmail attempt drew rage from many California politicians who are furious that obama would attempt such a thing.

Incredible....what else can you say? But, I still respect the Office of the President; just not the man currently in it. (My answer to the idiotic 'I support the troops but not the war')

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.