Glenn Greenwald writes a very compelling case for Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood to sit on the Supreme Court. I'm convinced. Now, how to convince Obama? I think the tail end of Glenn's article makes the best case for why picking Wood to replace Justice Stevens is not only good progressivism but good politics:

What makes Wood so unique is that she combines her principled convictions with an extraordinary ability to secure the support of other judges for her opinions. Her creative and flexible intellect enables her simultaneously to stay within the confines of the law while finding the most equitable outcomes that attract a broad range of support. The 7th Circuit is one of the more conservative circuits in the country, yet Wood's influence on that court and her ability to induce right-wing judges to support her rulings is remarkable, an attribute particularly important for replacing Justice Stevens. It's impossible to provide anything close to a comprehensive assessment of her 15 years of written opinions in this regard, but a few illustrative cases can be highlighted.

Given the need to persuade Justice Kennedy (and I have been convinced by some smart people that in fact Kennedy is persuadable), this is a critical skill. But there is another political upside - putting forth an intelligent exposition of the progressive view of the law, and putting it to the test. In that sense, Greenwald's associate Daniel Novack makes a strong point:

Via angrymouse, this guy's picture. His words, however, are pathetically stupid and ignorant:

Now available at Bass Pro Shops: The Larry Summers lure

Posted by Thomas Mitchell [Editor of the Las Vegas Review Journal]

I baited the hook and dropped it in the water. It was swallowed hook, line and sinker, rod and reel, up to the elbow, in a piranha-like feeding frenzy. [. . .] They bit on the Larry Summers lure.

Before Larry Summers was an adviser to the president, he was the president of Harvard University, until one day he committed a cardinal sin. He offered an off-the-cuff conjecture that the reason women might be underrepresented in math and science at elite universities just might be because there is an “innate” difference between men and women. Whether there was even a grain of statistical, scientific or logical evidence to support such a statement was irrelevant.

(Emphasis supplied.) Heh. Yep, whether the then Harvard President's statements about why women were underrepresented in math and science fields was complete nonsense is irrelevant. This clown Mitchell deserves a show on Fox (Beck could not have done it better.) For his next column, I suggest he use the William Bennett lure. I'm sure he will crack himself up. My gawd, the man is the editor of a daily newspaper. What a disgrace.

Speaking for me only

An eternal optimist, this announcement gives me hope:

President Obama [will] be at Cooper Union on Thursday to "remind Americans what is at stake if we do not move forward with changing the rules of the road as part of a strong Wall Street reform package,"

The most famous speech ever delivered at Cooper Union was Abraham Lincoln's speech in 1860. I have written about that speech often, including my first post at TalkLeft. Could it be that Obama is learning from Lincoln. Will he say to Republicans "[y]ou will rule or ruin in all events." Will he say to Democrats:

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

Hope springs eternal.

Speaking for me only

Steven D writes:

[An] AEI expert kept repeating the same talking point over and over -- the bill is bad because the Democrats want to set up a $50 billion dollar fund paid for by the big financial institutions. This is bad because it will enshrine "Too Big to Fail" in the law and in the minds of those who deal with those banks.

Thus the Republicans are opposed to financial reform on principle alone: they want to prevent the evil Democrats from ever bailing out Big Banks again. Republican[s] [. . .] want you to believe that their opposition to financial reform is to protect the public, rather than serve the needs of the financial industry [. . .]

Well put. But then there is this:

The Obama administration is telling Senate Democrats to ditch a measure in their financial reform bill that would create a $50 billion liquidation fund by assessing a fee on big financial institutions.

Seems the Obama Administration wants you to believe it too.

Speaking for me only

E.J. Dionne writes:

Democrats face problems not from right-wingers who have never voted for them but from a lack of energy among their own supporters and from dispirited independents and moderates who look to government to solve problems but have little confidence in its ability to deliver.

And the solution to these problems is?

This is an Open Thread.

I missed Simon Johnson and James Kwak appearing on Bill Moyers' show, but the transcript is available and well worth reading. I have been focused on the question of the regulatory state, Presidential power and the opportunity of populist outrage and will quote from the transcript to further explore these issues:

BILL MOYERS: What should be the purpose of reform? Should it change the behavior of Wall Street, or should it change the regulation of Wall Street? And there is a difference, is there not?

SIMON JOHNSON: Absolutely. Look, I don't know if this will work or not. I don't know if at the end of the day, we will end up supporting the bill. I hope we will, okay? But whatever happens, this is one legislative cycle. Theodore Roosevelt did not change the mainstream consensus in this country with regard to power and monopoly and the dangerous side effects of big business overnight. [. . .] The consensus has to change, Bill. And regulation, the role of regulation or understanding of regulation with regard to finance has to change. The regulation is there to limit the downside to society and to make sure that all of these activities have as much as possible of the positive effect on the economy without generating these massive negative shocks. And we're a long way from that point.

(Emphasis supplied.) Johnson focuses on the power of the Presidency in changing the consensus, but it should be noted that TR's power went beyond the bully pulpit to actual control of the Executive Branch.This circles back to my argument that the conventional (non-Bushian)unitary Executive theory may be vital to a strong regulatory state. More . . .

Brutal partisan brawling over things like healthcare reform and climate change legislation was (and is) entirely unsurprising. [. . .] Financial reform is different. Politically, the obvious play for both parties is to outbid each other in efforts to rein in Wall Street, which practically everyone in America hates. But even though this would be an enormous vote getter, neither party is doing it. Democrats are offering up some mild reforms that would modify the playing a field a bit but not really fundamentally change anything. Republicans won't even go that far.

This is not as surprising as Kevin would have it. Money is all important in politics. And much of the money in politics comes from Wall Street. This is where the promise of Obama changing politics was so obviously false. In any event, the era of Democrats running against Wall Street are long over. A relic of the era of FDR:

Speaking for me only

I want someone like Pam Karlan for the Court. But I would accept someone like Elena Kagan. Who would I oppose? Someone like Cass Sunstein. - BTD

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

I'm glad this debate [over Elena Kagan] has been triggered. No matter what else happens between now and 2012, Obama's choice to replace John Paul Stevens will be one of the most consequential decisions he makes. [. . .] There's no reason that those who advocated for Obama's election -- as I did -- should adopt a passive posture of simply waiting quietly for Obama's choice and then go forth and dutifully support his nominee. From the start, my objective has been to document all the available facts so that everyone can exercise their own independent, critical judgment about whether replacing Stevens with Kagan is remotely justifiable given long-standing progressive goals with regard to the Supreme Court.

(Emphasis supplied.) I completely agree. Indeed, I agree with this about every issue. It is a longstanding argument of mine that progressives should decouple their advocacy from Obama's actions. When they agree, strongly support. When they disagree, strongly criticize. That said, I think it is important to be accurate in your criticisms. I've taken issue with Glenn's interpretations on Kagan. But I also think there is an implicit assumption in Glenn's approach that is unrealistic - to wit, that Obama wants a progressive on the Supreme Court. I see no evidence to support such an implicit assumption. More . . .

There's a lot on new TV tonight: Pacific, Treme, Breaking Bad, Nurse Jackie, Celebrity Apprentice, Desperate Housewives and Brothers and Sisters. With tivo, I should be set for the week. What are you watching?

In the good news department, five airlines have said for now they won't charge carry-on luggage fees: Delta, United, US Air, American and JetBlue. Who's missing? Continental.

The media is going overboard in its coverage of tomorrow's 15th anniversary of the OKC bombing, particularly in its efforts to make it more relevant today by comparing it to those who engage in outspoken criticism of the Government, as if there's some homogeneous equation between them. The Oklahoman in its editorial today:

Any anniversary is hard for those losing a loved one to whatever cause. Birthday. Wedding. Day of death. Rounded anniversaries — 10 years, 15 years, 50 — aren’t necessarily more significant to the survivors than an "ordinary” mark of time.

They seem to matter more to the media and society than to the survivors. They matter most to those who exploit anniversaries for a political agenda or to rekindle the long-doused fires of conspiracy theories.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Two American lawyers and an Islamic charity have submitted their bill for damages following a federal court ruling the Bush Administration subjected them and Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation to illegal wiretapping. The tab as of now (not including attorneys' fees and costs): $612,000.

Judge Vaughn Walker ruled on March 31 (pdf) they were victims of Bush's NSA warrantless electronic surveillance program in violation of FISA, had directed them to submit a statement with their damages. On Friday, they filed this pleading (pdf).

The lawyers and the charity were illegally wiretapped for 204 days. Their bill reflects actual damages at the rate of $100 per day for each day of violation, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1810(a). In addition, there are punitive damages of of $183,600 for each of the three plaintiffs pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1810(b). [More...]

Former President Bill Clinton was on ABC's This Week this morning. Jake Tapper asked him whether he'd like to be on the Supreme Court. His answer:

“I think I would enjoy it, but I don't think it would be a good idea…I'm already 63 years old, I hope I live to be 90…I love what I'm doing now and what I'm doing now is something that I'm uniquely qualified to do, whereas there are many people who could be good on the court.”

He also said both he and Hillary are too old to be put on the Supreme Court now -- not because they can't do it but because it would be better to pick someone with more energy in their 40's or 50's....meaning someone who will serve longer.

As to who Obama should pick:

“My advice to him would be to first of all see what the court is missing…The important thing is that you think they're smart and they're competent and they understand the lives of ordinary people. Now one thing I think he should think about is have we…gone too far in this process that assuming only judges can be elected? That somehow you're not qualified if you weren't a judge."

Paul Krugman and Andrew Ross Sorkin got into it the other day when Sorkin mischaracterized Krugman's views on the need for large insolvent banks (specifically Citi and BoA) to be taken over by the FDIC (a process that happens every week btw with smaller insolvent banks.) The spat drew the attention of NYTimes Public Editor Clark Hoyt:

[A] full and fair reading of the [Krugman] column [. . .] does not support the notion that he favored nationalizing the entire banking system. [. . .] I sent Sorkin a message telling him that I did not think his citations supported his argument that Krugman had called for nationalizing the entire banking system. In a long written message and two phone conversations, he said he regarded his differences with Krugman as “an issue of semantics” over the meaning of nationalization.

(Emphasis supplied.) Sorkin is right --he has adopted the rhetoric of the Tea Partiers and completely changed the understood meaning of the term "nationalization." Once upon a time, we all understood what nationalization meant. Mexico nationalized its oil industry by taking over ownership. Chile nationalized its copper industry by taking ownership of it. Sorkin chooses the Tea Partier way: