home

What Makes For A "Centrist" Justice?

Stuart Taylor writes:

Obama has repeatedly stressed the "empathy" criterion . . . Meanwhile, conservative senators and legal experts and some centrists have criticized it as a thinly veiled rationale for seeking justices who will bend the law to benefit favored classes of people.

(Emphasis supplied.) "Centrists" like Taylor and Jeffrey Rosen he means ("centrists" who believe Roberts and Alito are "moderates.") But back in the real legal world, this is what "centrist" Supreme Court Justices have written, via Prof Darren Hutchinson: [More...]

[JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR:] We know that like race, gender matters. A plethora of studies make clear that in rape cases, for example, female jurors are somewhat more likely to vote to convict than male jurors. See R. Hastie, S. Penrod, & N. Pennington, Inside the Jury 140-141 (1983) (collecting and summarizing empirical studies). Moreover, though there have been no similarly definitive studies regarding, for example, sexual harassment, child custody, or spousal or child abuse, one need not be a sexist to share the intuition that in certain cases a person's gender and resulting life experience will be relevant to his or her view of the case. "`Jurors are not expected to come into the jury box and leave behind all that their human experience has taught them.'" Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 642 (1980). Individuals are not expected to ignore as jurors what they know as men--or women.

(Emphasis supplied.) Common sense apparently is not "centrist" for the likes of Stuart Taylor and Jeffrey Rosen.

Speaking for me only

< Rove Finishes Interview Over U.S. Attorneys' Firings | Military Commission Readings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Or gutting the VRA (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat May 16, 2009 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    instead of just declaring it unconstitutional.

    Call me crazy (none / 0) (#2)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat May 16, 2009 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    but I think Obama might stand and fight for his choice on this one-  for much the same reason he almost voted for Roberts- Obama appears to believe pretty strongly that the nomination of Justices is the president's perogative- I have a hard time seeing him back down from a qualified nominee in order to choose a "centrist."

    My understanding (none / 0) (#5)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 16, 2009 at 04:31:13 PM EST
    is that Obama was going to vote for Roberts because he thought he was very intelligent and didn't believe that a nominee should be opposed on ideological grounds.

    The Rouse/Obama story speaks volumes.

    He damn well better be nominating justices based on ideology.

    Parent

    Now it looks like Pres. Obama wants a (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat May 16, 2009 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    nominee who won't ruffle any feathers.

    Parent
    Most fears (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 16, 2009 at 11:26:00 PM EST
    realized and in so little time.

    Parent
    that's patently obvious (none / 0) (#12)
    by blogname on Sun May 17, 2009 at 08:04:23 AM EST
    Even last week, after Latino civil rights groups started asking for a Latino/a candidate, the "spin" in the papers (of course from anonymous sources) said that he anticipated more than one nominee -- so there was no need to appoint a Latino/a now.  Like glbt rights, the Latino/a judge will have to wait.

    One of the things that disturbed me the most during the Democratic primaries was the horrible narrative of "peacemaking" with the GOP. "All" that Clinton knows how to do is fight, but Obama is about reconciliation.  Knowing that nothing leftist ever comes without struggle, I found the discourse highly problematic.  I think we are living with the results.

    Parent

    Stay tuned for Obama's speech (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sun May 17, 2009 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    at Notre Dame today.  

    Parent
    you mean, (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat May 16, 2009 at 03:00:57 PM EST
    as opposed to seeking justices who will bend the law to oppress unfavored classes?

    Call me crazy but I think Obama might stand and fight for his choice on this one-

    fair enough, you're crazy. so far, in his young presidency, mr. obama hasn't really stood and fought for anything significant. this will be different why, exactly?


    Well (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 16, 2009 at 04:33:32 PM EST
    he has fought with some fervor to maintain the status quo in the finance industry and other business as unusual.

    Parent
    well, yeah, there is that. (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Sun May 17, 2009 at 08:24:31 AM EST
    he has fought with some fervor to maintain the status quo in the finance industry and other business as unusual.

    though i'm pretty certain that's not exactly what his most ardent supporters had in mind. hey, i could be wrong.

    Parent

    President Obama, per "feelers" (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat May 16, 2009 at 04:18:52 PM EST
    in LAT article, seems to want a nominee who won't raise anyone's hackles.  

    No surprise at all (none / 0) (#8)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 16, 2009 at 04:38:26 PM EST
    it's what we've come to expect.  

    I'm getting the feeling that on any given issue we won't really need a news story to determine where Obama will be.

    Parent

    A Disappointment (none / 0) (#11)
    by Joe Steel on Sun May 17, 2009 at 05:32:07 AM EST
    I'm getting the feeling that on any given issue we won't really need a news story to determine where Obama will be.

    Does that mean you expect Obama to be less of the leftist some of his supporters thought he was?

    I certainly do and I don't like it.  He's becoming a disappointment.

    Parent

    All I wanted (none / 0) (#15)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 17, 2009 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    was a real Democrat. Possibly half of an LBJ or HST.

    His supporters in the primaries were a real case, they ignored what he actually said and were suckered into thinking he shared their ideas of change.  They filled in the content where none existed.

    Parent

    thanks for the posting (none / 0) (#10)
    by blogname on Sun May 17, 2009 at 04:52:15 AM EST
    Here's a fuller analysis. You'll be surprised to see justices like Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsburg on the list of company with Sotomayor (the race/sex radical): Strikingly Similar: Comparing Sotomayor's Views on Sex and Race With Statements By O'Connor, Ginsburg, Scalia and Kennedy