home

Will Sunstein "Excite The Left" As A SCOTUS Nominee?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 09:31:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Glenn Greenwald:

The New York Times' Peter Baker has an article today on Obama's leading candidates to replace Stevens, in which one finds this strange passage:

The president’s base hopes he will name a full-throated champion to counter Justice Antonin Scalia, the most forceful conservative on the bench. . . . The candidates who would most excite the left include the constitutional scholars Harold Hongju Koh, Cass R. Sunstein and Pamela S. Karlan.

Glenn seems convinced "the Left" won't be excited by Sunstein. I wish I could be so sure. At this point, I suspect that may not be true.

Speaking for me only

< The Emergence Of The Dem Blogosphere | What Do Progressives Believe About Health Care Reform? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Will Sunstein "Excite The Left" As A SCOTUS Nominee? | 42 comments (42 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The real left (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by BDB on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 09:35:19 AM EST
    will not be excited by Sunstein.  

    "Progressives" and the faux left will surely fight for his confirmation, after all the GOP is bound to oppose it and that's the only standard they seem to care about.  Go Team!

    Let's be honest (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    On the bench, Sunstein would be somewhere to the right of Breyer.

    I for one don't want a Kennedy clone with less of a sense of individual rights and liberties.

    IANAL (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jmacWA on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 09:55:13 AM EST
    and have little knowledge of any of the candidates mentioned, so I will take your word on where Sunstein would fall in the left-right spectrum.

    However, based on what we just saw with HCR, once the pick is made and the marketing machine cranks up if you do not get behind the pick, you will be accused of being a Republican.

    My question is, what can be done to ensure that we get the person who will fall closest to the views of Justice Stevens (i.e. a liberal-leaning justice) selected as the nominee?

    Parent

    I think Karlan is a far better choice (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 11:21:01 AM EST


    Parent
    Karlan v. Scalia (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    Would just love to see that dynamic on the Court.....

    Parent
    Being Critical (none / 0) (#41)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 08:59:24 PM EST
    is not allowed by Obamatons as I have just been told by an Obamaton friend "that it's obvious I don't trust Obama, and I believe the GOP", blah blah.

    This is an intelligent person who is out of work, has no money, and is living a diminshed lifestyle. But mention any critcism however constructive of Obama and HCR and I have gotten a load of American Idol and how untrusting I am.

    This is sorry stuff and it really means no one is paying attention.

    Parent

    Even if Sunstein (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 09:52:19 AM EST
    had been much more consistently center-left or liberal in his pronouncements in the areas GG mentions, I still wouldn't back him because of his recent bizarre suggestion that the gov't should infiltrate and suppress any person or group who advocates for what he deems a "false" criminal conspiracy by gov't officials.  That sounds just a tad totalitarian to me.

    Strange guy with some twisted neocon notions of democracy and gov't power vs individual rights.  

    "Leftists" like Harold Ford therefore might applaud such a nomination.  Hippies like Lieberman and Evan Bayh too.

    Now, if Obama wanted to nominate his wife, Samantha Power to the Bench ...  

     

    Oh, it would be (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:11:46 AM EST
    wonderful if he picked Pam Karlan!   But she is a lesbian and that would shrivel the shorts of the entire Republican party.  My favorite pick, Kathleen Sullivan, would have the same problem.  

    Shrivel The Shorts? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:08:03 PM EST
    The GOP shorts will be shriveled with any pick Obama makes. And if Pam Karlin is picked, I would bet there will be no mention of her sexuality...  Cheney will see to it.

    They will attack her ruthlessly on all other fronts.

    Parent

    Slight preference for Karlan (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:35:54 PM EST
    since she's a bit younger, but not by much.  Both are intellectually impressive.

    It would be a refreshing change to put a real liberal on the Court, whoever that might be from among a handful of top hopefuls in that category.  Our side hasn't done it since 1967 and Thurgood Marshall.  Dem picks since then -- not very many of course, since Jimmy got zero -- have been of the mod/centrist ideology.


    Parent

    I think it will be Diane Wood (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:48:15 PM EST
    She reminds me of Sebelius for some reason--and Obama just loves Sebelius....

    Maybe it is the Midwest connection.....

    Parent

    Maybe not; she's 60. (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:49:50 PM EST


    Parent
    There is no way there's going to be (none / 0) (#24)
    by BDB on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:50:46 PM EST
    a second woman in a row nominated.  No way.

    I'll be happy if it isn't another Catholic (no offense to Catholics, but some things scar you for life and they're over-represented on the court).  

    Parent

    I thought (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:55:14 PM EST
    the conventional wisdom was it would be another woman.

    Didn't they float a bunch of female noms right after the health bill?

    Parent

    Yeah, more likely than not (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:08:17 PM EST
    it would be another woman. There are lots of good reasons to do that, and really none not to.

    Parent
    women generally live longer than men (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    too.  So there's that.  Plus the current balance of the court.  And I don't think Obama's dumb - he has to know who's smarting post-HCR.  Finally, it gives the Rethugs another opportunity to look like j@ck@asses.  I'm sure they won't disappoint.

    Parent
    Does it really matter if Sunstein (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    "Excite The Left?"

    Those few who represent the real left of the party have proven to be irrelevant, and without power or representation in the Democratic Party.

    Agree with BTD. (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    It's worrisome.

    Democrats who are still in the stands cheering Obama will certainly cheer any choice he makes and he's already chosen both Sunstein and Kagan for major posts with little blowback.

    This is what Obama means by postpartisan...when you can't tell the difference between your friends and your enemies.

    Excites me, but not in a good way (none / 0) (#38)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 06:34:40 PM EST


    Parent
    heh... (none / 0) (#39)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 07:47:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Sunstein will excite "progressives" (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    Because anything Obama does excites them.

    Good To Know (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:37:06 PM EST
    What your flock's new coded pejorative is around here ...  You are "the man" aka trend setter.

    Parent
    Squeaky FAIL (none / 0) (#29)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    What "coded pejorative"?

    "Obama"? Not a bad idea, actually. Really puts across the idea of the guy's essential inner emptiness. A "blank slate," as it were.

    * * *

    If you're talking about "progressives," they didn't need any help from me trashing their brand. And there's no "coding" involved -- they chose to identify with the term all by themselves. Not my fault they never bothered to define what "progress" meant.

    Parent

    Fail? (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 05:11:15 PM EST
    But Professor Lambert, according to my review of your grading my comment, I got two our of three right:

    You are "the man" aka trend setter and have a flock.  

    Assuming all answers are equally weighted, my grade would be 66.33 whose letter grade equivalent would be a D.

    Most reasonable people would see that I got an A, but a D is hardly FAIL.

    But then again, I have noticed that the hipsters are using FAIL quite a lot these days throughout the blogoshere and elsewhere.  The translation is: "Since I am so much more important than most mortals, the mere fact that I disagree with you, means you FAIL"

    lol... good to see that you are keeping up with the kool kids...

    Parent

    You're confusing a grade... (none / 0) (#36)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 05:26:14 PM EST
    ... with an existential predicament.

    Parent
    Got It (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    My mistake, you are not comparing yourself to mere mortals, but to gods...

    Parent
    He's also a known quanity for (none / 0) (#16)
    by masslib on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:38:43 PM EST
    the Obama-progressives from the campaign.  They have an emotional attachment to him.  And, they love his wife.  For frivolous reasons such as these, I think many would love the pick.

    As an aside to BTD, I really have know knowledge of the other justices who may or may not be in the running, is there anything you can tell us about the other two.

    Parent

    Silly of me I'm sure but I really think we ought (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by masslib on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    to try to have some gender equality on the Court.  Women make up over half the work force, shouldn't that be reflected in the Court, to some degree at least?
    No question, and (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    last I checked, women have made up nearly half of law school grads for a decade or so, with strong percentages in the 40s for years before that.

    A solid liberal female pick also might help the Obama admin in overcoming any downside with the base from the recent HCR compromise over abortion.

    Parent

    Eh... (none / 0) (#40)
    by masslib on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 08:38:53 PM EST
    "A solid liberal female pick also might help the Obama admin in overcoming any downside with the base from the recent HCR compromise over abortion."  

    I don't think he can make up for that.  The Court should still be mpre reflective of society.

    Parent

    In the referenced NYT article by Peter Baker, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    Curt Levy, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a conservative advocacy groups is quoted as follows: "If it were a Sunstein or Koh, you would have all-out war".  If so, my guess is that a Sunstein nomination would be considered a dumb war.

    Yep, a dumb and (none / 0) (#20)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:28:57 PM EST
    unnecessary war.

    Scotus picks are heavily influenced by politics and, for Dems, notions of equality and representation.

    We've already got enough white guys on the Court, six of the nine I believe.  And we've already got the moderate and center-right positions covered.

    I'm not sure what Obama would be trying to accomplish with an unnecessary war -- mostly from w/n his own party -- over a knucklehead Sunstein choice.  And he would be moving an already right-leaning Ct even further to the right.

    I put the chances as no more than 5% that Sunstein replaces Stevens.

    Parent

    Yay... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:03:47 PM EST
    So we elected a Democrat to get a more right-wing Supreme Court? How cool. Although it does mean the Democrats won't be able to scream SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS when berating us to vote for them.

    Nah (none / 0) (#34)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:27:27 PM EST
    this would preserve the pre-Obama balance- Sontamayor is to the left of O'Connor, Sustein to the right of Stevens.

    Parent
    I'm bookmarking that GG post (none / 0) (#4)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 09:54:36 AM EST
    for future reference.  It's a terrific summary of the issues with Sunstein (with a little Kagan thrown in too).

    And it also reminded me that I miss Kathy G.  who used to be one of my favorite bloggers and one of the few women bloggers I read regularly.  

    She sure doesn't mince words. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:06:49 PM EST
    Greenwald reminded me how much I do not want Sunstein on SCOTUS.  Much more detail than what I remembered, which was FISA and Roe v. Wade.

    Parent
    First change the Senate Rules (none / 0) (#6)
    by Michael Masinter on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 10:00:36 AM EST
    Neither Pam Karlan (my first choice) nor Koh has any chance of securing the sixty votes needed to bring a nominee to a confirmation vote in the face of a filibuster.  If Obama wants to nominate either of them, he must first persuade Joe Biden and the democrats who will remain in the Senate after the fall election to declare in the January organizational meeting that the Senate is not a continuing body, to then secure 51 votes to uphold that ruling against a republican challenge, and then to adopt with 51 votes new rules that forbid filibusters of judicial nominees, or perhaps all presidential nominees and legislation.  Without a change in the senate rules, possible only in January, the senate will not confirm any judge who would make us smile.

    Note that the job of rounding up 50 democratic votes in the senate to alter its rules will not be easy; there are democrats who are deeply invested in the power they gain from the filibuster.  Some of them will lose their seats this fall, but others will remain, and changing the rules will be a very long shot at best.  

    The irony here is that our best chance to abolish the filibuster came during the Bush presidency, when the so called nuclear option was bandied about.  Progressives, fearful of some of the Bush court of appeals nominees, defended the power to filibuster, forgetting that with only the briefest of exceptions, the filibuster has been deployed to block progressives and our agenda.  By cutting a deal to confirm most of his nominees in return for dropping the nuclear option, we left in place the power we now face to block liberals and progressives.  As has too often been the case, we were our own worst enemies.

    Please, let's have gridlock (none / 0) (#30)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:10:21 PM EST
    Since the Dems want to go after "entitlement reform" next (only Obama can go to China), gridlock is preferable to making things worse (which the Dems have done on FISA, torture, executive power, the banks and, arguably, NCR (Higher Corporate Returns).

    Parent
    meh (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:13:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Why use only Obama can go to China (none / 0) (#33)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:26:07 PM EST
    when there's a far more recent example- Only Obama can reform Welfare.

    Parent
    what (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 08:07:16 AM EST
    is your love of welfare? You're always bemoaning the fact that it's gone. I hate to tell you this but it was an extremely unpopular program.

    Parent
    Kim Wardlaw (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    She's on the Ninth Circuit now.....Her mother is Mexican American....
    I thought she had a chance but one of her opinions is now up before the Surpreme Court and will likely be reversed... In Quon, she held that a police officer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the pages he sent using a departmental pager.  The department had a written policy that the pagers were strictly for departmental use and all pagers could be accessed by the department.  Wardlaw held that an informal oral policy by a supervisor trumped the written policy.....

    She also wrote an opinion last year holding that tasers are a significant level of force that must be justified by a strong governmental interest.

    Rumor had it she was being vetted last year for the Souter seat.

    She would have been great on issues of personal liberty.  I thought she could be confirmed because before taking the bench she supported Republican Richard Riordan as Mayor of LA and had worked for mega firm O'Melveny, not exactly a socialist outfit....

    Worked on Bill's transition team and was appointed by Bill to the bench...

    She was heavily involved in local politics....She would be a bold progressive....and perhaps that shows too much now to be confirmed....

    The next big political issue should be the confirmation battle this Summer over Stevens's replacement....

    Will Sunstein "Excite The Left" As A SCOTUS Nominee? | 42 comments (42 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment