Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has made it official; he is retiring at the end of this term. I think the following excerpt makes it clear how important it is that Obama fight for a liberal replacement.
“I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all,” he told me during a recent interview in his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. “I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.” Stevens said that his views haven’t changed since 1975, when as a moderate Republican he was appointed by President Gerald Ford to the Supreme Court. Stevens’s judicial hero is Potter Stewart, the Republican centrist, whom Stevens has said he admires more than all of the other justices with whom he has served. He considers himself a “judicial conservative,” he said, and only appears liberal today because he has been surrounded by increasingly conservative colleagues. “Including myself,” he said, “every judge who’s been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell” — nominated by Richard Nixon in 1971 — “has been more conservative than his or her predecessor. Except maybe Justice Ginsburg. That’s bound to have an effect on the court.”
The three names currently in the mix are solicitor general Elena Kagan, Judge Diane Wood (7th Cir.) and Judge Merrick Garland (D.C. Cir.). The Republicans would not fight Garland, as they see him as the most acceptable possibility. But none of these judges are ideologically as far left as Stevens. I’ve looked at all the judges who are currently serving on the circuit/appeals courts, and there aren’t really any alternatives who are the right age. So, if Obama wants to replace Stevens with someone equally liberal, he’ll have to look at law schools or at politicians or somewhere else.
As a kind of side note, I am aware of my privileged position as a white protestant-raised man in this society, but if Stevens is not replaced with a protestant, there will be no protestants on the Court. Somehow, I don’t think that’s right. It’s perfectly acceptable for people from other ethnic, racial, or religious backgrounds to openly advocate for representation on the Court, and I know very well that for more than a century that protestant men were (with one exception) the only people on the Court. I wouldn’t even bring the subject up except that having no protestants on the Court in a country that is still protestant-majority seems a bit of an overcompensation. It’s not like I’ll be heartbroken or anything if someone else is picked, but I think it’s something worthy of consideration. The Court should resemble the country as a whole, which is why it has been important to nominate women and Catholics and blacks and latinos.
So by a process of simple mindedness, the next SC candidate and justice should be a female Protestant.
Actually, I believe that because it will be more difficult for the Senate Republicans to filibuster a female than a male candidate, especially one with children, the ouster of a female candidate will have ramifications for the November election.
So which female Protestant candidate is a mother?
I can’t determine her religion, but possibly Diane Wood would fit your criteria.
.
I like the choice, some interesting background as Law Professor at Univ. of Chicago, combined with motherhood. You know how tough that is!
Fiercely competitive as it is, the University of Chicago’s distinctive culture has helped keep relations cordial on the Seventh Circuit, Wood believes. When she was appointed to the federal bench in 1995, her selection came on the strong recommendation of an Illinois senator who advised the president that a heavy intellectual counterweight was needed to the court’s two conservative lions, sitting Judges Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook. Wood had known both men for some 15 years; they’d taught together at Chicago. At the university, she says, the drive is to debate as hard as possible, but avoid making it personal. She can tick off many of the cases in which she’s dissented from one or both of those two fellow judges — on the legality of random police blockades, on what responsibility a company bears if a supervisor sexually harasses underlings, on whether former Illinois Gov. George Ryan’s corruption conviction should stand. But she keeps the phrasing light and professional, saying things like, “Dick took a different view than I.”
“We have a wonderful working relationship, and I really attribute that to the positive side of that University of Chicago ethos,” she says. “I think it sets a tone for the whole court.”
Scotus Buzz
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."And “Wood was born in Plainfield, New Jersey.”
What else does one need? She’s a shoe in, to quote Gilroy, “you can bet on it.”
I think the best choice from the “top 3” list that’s been floating around is Elena Kagan. They just confirmed her for Solicitor General, so they’d be hard pressed to filibuster her now. She’s likely have a generally smooth confirmation, just as Sotomayor did. I also like the idea of adding another woman to the Court.
But if I can pick my ultimate choice? Goddwin Liu. The guy is brilliant, known to be able to sway opinions from all sides, and personable. He obviously has the legal chops to be an amazing SC Justice. Also, it would be fantastic payback to the GOP for stalling his 9th circut nomination. Also, h would be the first Asian-American SC Justice (I think). Also, he’s 39 years old, meaning he’d probably be able to sit on the bench for 40+ years.
He really is the BEST choice I’ve seen. But only in my dreams would this White House take on that fight.
Goodwin Liu. Darn typos.
If you are looking for payback, you can’t do any better than Anita Hill.
It’s quite possible that Liu will get consideration at some point. Obamas sister is Asian and they’ve never been represented on the court.
The WH has nominated Liu to the 9th Circuit and so far they haven’t been able to get him out of the Judiciary Committee.
Kagan looks like a civil liberties disaster. I don’t see how we can afford to have anyone who defends indefinite detention on the court. Liu sounds like a great choice, though.
any atheists on the court?
we could use some people who don’t believe in magical invisible superbeings.
If there are, they aren’t advertising it.
SERIOUSLY, where’s the atheist/agnostic representation? This talk about having a protestant on the court is one of the most superficial things I’ve ever read on this blog. I don’t give a rat’s ass what team these people are on; I’m far more concerned whether they are progressive, interested in social justice, and committed to checking the power of the other two branches.
Unfortunately the Catholic bishops and their altar boys have made religion an issue once again. Maybe Boo was just too polite to say Enough already with the Catholics.
For Your Consideration Mr. President:
Leah Ward Sears for the U.S. Supreme Court
A black woman? Cue the pearl clutching 3..2..1
She’d be a great pick.
I’d definitely see her as more likely replacement for Ginsburg, maybe next year.
Why? Because there can only be two women on the court.
Personally, I feel Obama should be nominating only women until the court is split 5/4 or 4/5 men/women.
Uhm, forgive my ignorance, but Souter is Episcopalian. As far as I can tell, that is a type of Protestant…
According to wiki:
I agree that attempts at equal representation are important, and that Protestants are underrepresented on the current court, but it seems to me that Souter should count towards representing the protestant majority.
(Christians as a whole are represented about accurately while Catholics and Jews are over represented on the current court as a percentage of the population.)
David Souter retired.
I need more sleep.
Souter was replaced by a Catholic
and that she’s rather conservative
Obama said he’s looking for someone like Stevens. That would not be Kagan. With her lust for indefinite detention and attitude that anything goes in a time of war (ie, always and forever), we’d be lucky if she matched up with slugs like Kennedy or O’Connor. Obama knows she’s no Stevens. If he nominates her anyway I think I’m done with him.
Glenn Beck is warning of another Armageddon that involves Obama nominating a “gay, handicapped, black woman, who’s an immigrant”. If only I could earn 32 million dollars a year being a bigot…
Is Sotomayor more conservative than Souter?
For Stevens’ replacement, I don’t have a guess. Obama is more likely than any other politician to realize that the effect of his choice will long outlast this year’s election cycle, and to make a choice based on the long view.
.
National Public Radio reports that potential candidates for the open seat include Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal judge Merrick Garland, both Jewish, as well as Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who is Catholic, and federal judge Diane Wood, who is Protestant.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s “Religious Landscape Survey” suggests that the country is about 51 percent Protestant, 24 percent Catholic, and 1.7 percent Jewish.
“I don’t think a person’s religious affiliation matters as much as their judicial philosophy,” said Mathew Staver, dean of Liberty University law school. “The rule of law is not to push an agenda.”
“I don’t think we would be fooled if President Obama picks someone with a Protestant affiliation,” Staver said. “It’s nice to have diversity, but the law is color blind and your skin color or religious affiliation shouldn’t be reflective of your decisions.”
Retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor told the Associated Press earlier this week that the high court should have more diversity.
Current U.S. Supreme Court Members
[Justices Sotomayor and Antonin Scalia are both Catholic but their interpretation of living the faith — social justice emphasis on the left or traditionalist on the right — seems quite different.]
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."