| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Fill Souter's shoes with a genial persuader |
| 2009-05-05 |
| By Kermit Roosevelt Filling the shoes of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who announced his retirement Friday, will not be easy. I clerked for Justice Souter in the 1999-2000 term and left that job with a respect for the judge matched only by my affection for the man. It's been said that President Obama's appointment won't be a transformative one. That's true in one sense. Justice Souter generally voted with the moderate to liberal justices, and his replacement will almost surely do so also. In terms of net votes, the liberal/conservative balance will not change. But the vacancy offers Mr. Obama an early opportunity to make a lasting mark on the country. Like a cattle brand, or a tramp stamp tattoo. That's because he can do more than appoint a reliably liberal jurist -- which wouldn't greatly affect the court's rulings. He can appoint a jurist with that rare ability to persuade her conservative colleagues -- which emphatically would affect the court's rulings. Such a quality will be vital in the years ahead. Think how many crucial issues -- from the 2000 election to gun control to eminent domain -- have been decided by 5-to-4 rulings in recent years. Obama's nominee may well serve on the bench for the next 30 years. Gives me nightmares just thinking about it. In just the next few years, her ability to build a coalition, or lack thereof, could decide the answers to such high-stakes questions as abortion, same-sex marriage, race-based affirmative action, and privacy. As my pronoun choice suggests, I think Obama should pick a woman. The sexes plainly have different experiences, and a woman will bring to the Supreme Court a life history and set of understandings a man would not. That the current court consists of nine former federal court of appeals judges has been thought problematic. It is surely as important to have women on the court as it is to have people with experience in legislatures or executive office, especially when well-qualified female candidates abound. But as he says next, qualifications (other than sex) don't matter. ...it will matter very little whether Obama's nominee is brilliant, or whether her opinions draw chuckles in law school faculty lounges. Souter's opinions SHOULD have drawn chuckles, but the law schools have failed as badly as the rest of education. Her influence will lie not in the voice that speaks to the public but rather in the lower tones that carry no farther than the marble halls of One First Street. more babble in the original Maybe Zero should appoint Bill Clinton. IIRC he can't argue before the SC, but that wouldn't stop him from hearing arguments. And he may not be a woman, but it seems like Hillary's castrated him, so he would still represent an underserved sexual demographic. And his 'legal' statements already draw chuckles (depending on the meaning of the word 'is'.) |
| Posted by:Glenmore |
| #5 Circus carny. small hands...smell like cabbage...can't stand em |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-05-05 21:00 |
| #4 I have no idea what the other options are. Circus carny. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2009-05-05 17:31 |
| #3 Former President Clinton is by all accounts quite a brilliant mind, despite his moral issues. He might end up surprising all, including himself, if he were required to rigourously defend his arguments against the challenges from others as brilliant as himself. Also, he would bring a practical politician's view to the proceedings. While he certainly wouldn't be my first choice, I have no idea what the other options are. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-05-05 17:00 |
| #2 Careful, Bambi might consider that a challenge ... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-05-05 15:43 |
| #1 The silver lining is that it would be damn near impossible to do *worse* than Souter. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2009-05-05 12:05 |