May 4, 2009
On April 30, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his intention to retire after the current court term recess in June. Many were surprised by this announcement. Since Justice John Paul Stevens is 89 and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 76, most Supreme Court watchers expected one of those two jurists to be the first to retire after the election of President Obama. Those who know Justice Souter all concur that he hates living in Washington, D.C. where he is a reluctant member of the capitol’s “elite”.
Watching Friday’s news programs, I was amused by the mad scramble by those on the “hard right” to organize their opposition to the confirmation of Preisdent Obama’s nominee to the high court. Obama has not yet even announced whom he intends to nominate, yet these reactionaries are already against that person. So, the fun begins . . .
Once the President makes the nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee begins the confirmation hearings, wherein the candidate will become incessantly badgered about his or her views on abortion, gay weddings, gun control and whether the court should “intervene” by overturning patently unconstitutional laws enacted by a bought-off (Oops! — I mean “lobbied”) Congress. The Judiciary Committee then issues its report and the full Senate votes to either confirm or reject the nomination with 51 votes.
This process became a spectator sport back in 1987, when Ronald Reagan nominated the Amish-looking, Robert Bork. The Democrats immediately launched a full-on battle against the nomination, considered by many as a bit over-the-top, since it involved scrutiny of Bork’s video rentals. This particular judicial confirmation resulted in the use of the word “Bork” as a verb. Since that time, getting “Borked” described any situation wherein a political appointee became the target of a partisan attack during the confirmation process. Nevertheless, Bork’s view that the Constitution provides no guarantee of an individual’s right to privacy, justified much of the ire against him. During the confirmation hearings, he criticized the decision in Roe v. Wade. Dumb idea. Since that time, Republican nominees to any Federal Court do all they can to avoid providing straight answers to questions dealing with a woman’s right to determine whether she will carry a fetus to term.
The most entertaining confirmation hearings came along when George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991. By that time, Bush appointee David Souter had already begun to disappoint the “hard right”. The administration wanted to be sure they had a hard-line conservative this time and in Thomas they found the prefect candidate to replace the court’s first African-American Justice, Thurgood Marshall, who retired. The excitement began when the committee heard testimony from Anita Hill, who had worked for Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Ms. Hill testified that while working at the EEOC, she was sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas on several occasions. The most memorable portion of her testimony concerned a remark by Thomas that his favorite porn video was a feature entitled: Long Dong Silver. Although Hill’s testimony ultimately did not block the confirmation of Thomas, people began lining up at adult book stores to purchase copies of the overnight classic. I always wondered whether a certain chain of seafood restaurants also might have benefited from that aspect of the proceedings.
At this point, many Republicans likely assume that President Obama will nominate an ultra-liberal judge to counter-balance the far-right members of the court: Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. News outlets are already abuzz with speculation concerning the most likely nominee. The betting is heavy that Obama will nominate a woman for this vacancy because a man (Samuel Alito) was appointed by George W. Bush to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, one of only two females on the court when Bush took office. Some pundits expect Obama to nominate someone from a minority group to add a little more diversity to the court. As a result, many of these people expect Judge Sonia Sotomayor from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to get the nod. My prediction is that the President will select Judge Diane Wood from the Seventh Circuit. She shares Obama’s experience as an instructor at the University of Chicago Law School and she has a solid background.
Nevertheless, we can expect quite a bit of showboating once the confirmation process begins. It might not be as much fun as the Clarence Thomas hearings . . . but who knows?
Let the games begin!
Much Ado About Nothing
May 28, 2009
The media feeding frenzy over President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court provides us with yet another reason why so many newspapers and news magazines are going broke: They beat stories to death. There has been quite a bit of hype in the run-up to Obama’s announcement of his choice. News outlets have been salivating in anticipation of a protracted, partisan brawl with visions of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, dancing in their heads. A visit to the RealClearPolitics website for May 27 provides the reader with an assaultive profusion of articles concerning the Sotomayor nomination.
There are a couple of simple dynamics at work here. With his nomination of Judge Sotomayor, President Obama has set out a trap for partisan Republicans, hell-bent on opposing any nominee selected by the Democrat for the high court. Once these “attack dogs” pounce on Sotomayor, they reinforce the public perception of the GOP as the Party of White Men. They would not only alienate female voters but they would also antagonize Hispanic voters. This is exactly why you won’t really see that much of a fight over her nomination. On the other hand, a political “has been” such as Newt Gingrich, sees the Sotomayor nomination as the perfect opportunity to keep his fat face in front of the cameras, without any apparent regard as to whether his remarks could exacerbate the GOP’s image problem. The “hard right” media outlets and other authoritarian activist groups have instinctively responded by filling in the blanks on their pre-written scripts to include Sotomayor’s name as well as the necessary touch-ups to relate their remarks to this particular target. One smear fits all.
In case you haven’t figured it out yet . . . It’s all a waste of your time. You need only read one story about the Sotomayor nomination and it was written by Mike Allen of Politico. Relying on confidential Republican sources, Mr. Allen reports that “the GOP plans no scorched-earth opposition to her confirmation”. At this point, I should advise you that the hissing sound you are hearing is all the air coming out of the tires for those pundits, hoping to expand this story into an epic drama and an eventual book deal. It’s not happening. As Mike Allen reported:
The news media shouldn’t try to create one, either . . . but they will anyway. What else are they going to discuss? You’re already sick of the American Idol stories. So what they’re left with is the economy. They hate that subject because the public and their own reporters are too dumb to understand it. Besides … it’s boring and it involves math! Never mind the fact that you’re going broke. Just smoke your “green shoots” and believe in a “hope rally” for the stock market.
It’s always refreshing when someone such as Mike Allen undermines the mainstream media hype machine by sticking to the simple truth of a story. In this case the simple truth is that the story itself is quite simple.