Obama seeks court nominee who backs women's rights

Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2010-04-21 20:36

Story here. Women's rights concerns as such include issues other than abortion rights. Yet, it seems the president and others focus on that issue in a make-or-break fashion, at the same time completely ignoring the other side of the equation: What of the right of men to have the same chance to terminate parental responsibilities? Excerpt:

'WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, treading carefully on the explosive issue of abortion and the Supreme Court, said Wednesday he will choose a nominee who pays heed to women's rights and privacy when interpreting the Constitution.

"That's very important to me," Obama said. Yet he insisted he will not make any potential nominee pass a "litmus test" on abortion rights.

Obama consulted Senate leaders from both parties at the White House as he moved toward choosing a replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens, who turned 90 on Tuesday and is retiring.

The White House says Obama is considering about 10 people and has begun conversations with candidates. A nominee is expected within the next few weeks.

Noting that the abortion debate has long divided the country, Obama underscored his belief in a right to privacy while attempting not to box himself in.
...
The Senate Democratic leader said he told Obama the nominee need not already be a judge, but possibly "someone who's an academic, someone who's held public office, someone who's an outstanding lawyer. And the president said he'll take that into consideration."'

The president, et al., concerned with reproductive-rights-as-women's-rights, seem deaf and blind on one side of their heads while able to see and hear just one thing on the other. Oh and another thing: Hillary Clinton has been mentioned as a candidate for the vacant seat.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Hillary clinton may have been a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge she has no experience as a judge. Hopefully her nomination will go the way of harriet miers and obama bin mangina will have to choose a more obscure hate mongerer

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by V3N0M on Thu, 2010-04-22 07:05

The US SC has a long history of non-judges suddenly becoming elevated to the highest judicial position possible. It goes to show quite unequivocally that this is a political appointment, not a legal one.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html

More surprises:
http://volokh.com/2010/04/09/supreme-court-justices-who-hadnt-been-judges/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_have_to_be_a_lawyer

There is no doubt in my mind that the vacant seat will be filled by a woman. (It should not matter but as you already know, it does.) The president has all but said he will be sure to nominate a pro-choice candidate. This a current list of possible candidates as picked by the Wiki Gods. You can exclude the names of men entirely. That leaves as follows:

> Ann Claire Williams - No declared party affiliation, but she is an African-American. Wikipedia says nothing about her abortion views.
> Diane Pamela Wood - As judge, held that abortion protesters were chargeable under RICO. This ruling was later overturned by the US SC.
> M. Margaret McKeown - Wikipedia only mentions she upheld a ruling against the display of a religious figure on US property.
> Kim McLane Wardlaw - Wikipedia says little about her decisions but mentions she is half-Latina. (Aren't you sick of race/ethnicity being considered so important to everything? I am. But it looks like humanity cannot get past this.)
> Christine Arguello - Not much mentioned here, but was nominated under both Clinton and Bush.
> Leah Ward Sears - First woman and youngest person to sit on the GA Supreme Court and is a former chief justice thereof. Lots of decisions, nothing noteworthy re repro rights.
> Beth Brinkmann - No mention of repro. rights but that she is "moderate, pragmatic, and pro-business".
> Hillary Clinton - No comment needed.
> Elena Kagan - Our current solicitor-general. It says she has supported "assertions of executive power". No mention of repro rights.
> Janet Napolitano - Our current head of homeland security. Currently polling lower than the president in popularity, I think we can skip her.
> Amy Klobuchar - Endorsed by EMILY's List, she is clearly pro-choice.
> Claire McCaskill - No history one way or another of repro. choice.
> Zoe Lofgren - No history that I can see. She has been a Demo party faithful though.
> Pamela S. Karlan - Nothing on repro. rights, serves as a news commentator, too. She is an "out" lesbian (also, this shouldn't matter, but like ethnicity, it does to the average voter, whether they be gay, straight,or whatnot. Again, a sorry state of affairs we are in.)
> Martha Minow - Solid history of advocacy for the less-fortunate and for women's rights. Nothing in there specifically about repro. rights but I think it's safe to assume she would support women's repro. rights.
> Kathleen Sullivan - Nothing in Wikipedia on her repro. rights but a supporter of gay rights (should it matter vis-a-vis repro rights? No. But as I said above...)
> Elizabeth Warren - Currently involved in dissecting the financial meltdown mess. No mention of repro. rights. Looks to me to have much more interest in business and things like that.

Note the list under "Academics" (Karlan-to-Warren) does not include a single man.

Anyone else on this list is fair game. Now the next thing is to ask, do any of them have any history at all of being pro-life (we know already none of them are pro-choice for men, anyway, but some may be pro-life). None of them are mentioned in Wikipedia as being pro-life. But the following are known to stand firmly as pro-choicers, or at least clearly sympathetic:

Diane Pamela Wood
Hillary Clinton
Amy Klobuchar
Martha Minow

Wood has the fact that she is actually a judge going for her. This is a big bonus. Clinton has the fact that she is the Sec'y of State and former First Lady, and almost made POTUS except for a handful of votes. But she is way too controversial and will not get past confirmation even in a Senate-full of Demos. (Besides, I think she still has her sites set on the Big Chair and may well go to her grave with this delusion in mind; being on the SC will preclude her from ever making POTUS.) Klobuchar is a solid Demo party adherent so she has brownie points. Minow has a breadth of appeal and is likely to be seen as "ruling from the heart" instead of from actual legal principle and precedent, an idea which has now come to be considered a benign thing.

But there is another name I want to mention and will say right now she is a real contender: Leah Ward Sears. Even though she has no repro rights track record, I am sure that won't matter; in fact it will be more likely to get her confirmed should she be nominated since the balancing act of getting a pro-life/pro-choice-for-sure person through the confirmation process has been repeatedly shown to be the third rail of said process. Private conversations between her and Obama will I am sure put to rest any concerns he may have about her repro. rights ideas. She also seems to be between jobs these days, as it were. The other potential nominees right now have work on their hands. And, she is an African-American.

I am not a betting man and so will not take wagers. I am just saying that based ONLY on what I know right now, and a lot of that is from Wikipedia, I will say this: I think the most likely nominee by Obama will be Leah Ward Sears and that she will be confirmed. The Senate will dare not decline the nomination due to her skin color and gender. They would have to find evidence of overt malfeasance and/or corruption not to do it, which is what is usually the standard anyway (presidents traditionally always get their nominees confirmed, lacking a substantial reason not to do so, even at this level).

Now if only we could get a nominee who supported repro. rights for everyone. Would be a real nice thing.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2010-04-22 17:35