In Suprise Appearance At Press Conference, Obama Outlines Qualifications For Scotus Nominee
Barack Obama made a surprise appearance at White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' daily briefing to "say a few words about [David Souter's] decision to retire from the Supreme Court."
Video below, followed by a partial transcription under the fold.
Throughout his two decades on the Supreme Court he has shown what it means to be a fair minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task....He approached judging as he approaches life with a feverish work ethic and a good sense of humor, with integrity, equanimity, and compassion--the hallmark of not just being a good judge, but of being a good person. I am incredibly grateful for his dedicated service. I told him as much when we spoke....
The process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as president. So i will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook, it is also about how are laws effect the daily realities of peoples lives--whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome and their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples' hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes. I will seek someone who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our Constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process, and the appropriate limits of the judicial role....
As I make this decision I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum and it is my hope that we can swear in our new supreme court justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first monday in October when the court's new term begins. And with that I would like you to give Robert a tough time again.
Now seems like as good a time as any to begin over-parsing his words. Or better yet, to begin parsing how others will parse the his words. So I bolded some of Obama's key phrases. Was he taking a swipe at George W. Bush's appointees? Is he signaling his intent to appoint dread "activist judges"? Do white men need not apply?
I have no idea. But I'd wager that others think they do, and will be telling us all about it in the next few hours.
Josh
Matt
Eric
"that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples' hopes and struggles"
Well, I guess it won't be a Republican.
May 1, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That surely rules out the corporately owned Blue Dogs.
May 1, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope he doesn't strive for bi-partisanship in choosing a strong conservative so he can have a healthy debate with him/her.
May 1, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This will be a great chance for the GOP to stand up and show what they really stand for [obstruction]
May 1, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What in God's name are we going to do without someone guarding against activist judges? Oh, the horror I tell you, the horror!
May 1, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since we're into post-partisanship, I suggest that Obama should not nominate a Democrat. Nominate Bernie Sanders.
May 1, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well he certainly doesn't to want anyeone who knows law, that's for sure.
May 1, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You lost by 10 million votes.
May 1, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Begone, malodorous troll.
May 1, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your misery makes me happy.
May 2, 2009 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
President Obama has a Juris Doctor magna cum laude from Harvard, similar to many US legal scholars and judges, both on the left and right.
Obama was made the editor of the Harvard Law Review in his first year, and president of the journal the next year. He won support from both liberals and conservatives because he was known for bringing together both sides even in contentious issues. Many conservatives and liberals have praised that quality. Where there were disagreements he was also known to be respectful and never disagreeable.
With Obama's credentials he could have clerked for the Supreme Court and been groomed to become a Federal Judge. If he hadn't pursued a road to the Presidency it's feasible he could have pursued a path the the SCotUS.
Obama was a professor of Constitutional law for 12 years.
Obama is the most qualified President to appoint a SCotUS Judge in modern times. He has the legal knowledge and respect for the Constitution as well as the personal background, equanimity, and intellect.
May 2, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook"
Brian asks if Obama was taking a swipe at Bush's appointments. You bet he was. That phrase could not better describe Justice Alito. He is an ideological prig, who in the phrase most beloved by the right "never met a payroll." He has worked for the government all his life, probably has never had any close associations with anyone not of his own ethnicity, and can write a perfect, bloodless, law review type opinion that is entirely devoid of any soul but adheres closely to right-wing ideology. Another example, like Jay Bybee, of the banality of evil.
At least Scalia wears his ideology on his sleeve and does not pretend to be writing scholarly, neutral opinions.
God, I hope Obama doesn't appoint another "professional federal court judge." The great justices of history have not come from that mileau: Warren, Brandies, Douglas, Black, Jackson. Brennan, etc.
May 1, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is Excellent News. The social conservatives and radical right have been rabid for a real fight, ever since the election.
While they are pissing and moaning and vomiting all over themselves to "stop the Obama machine" at the SCOTUS, we'll get the economy fixed, healthcare done, the auto industry back on its feet, energy policy to get us off foreign oil done, and 21st century education reform in place.
No matter who Obama ultimately picks, it won't matter. Because they will oppose and fight.
While they are wasting their energy on what ultimately won't matter one way or the other anyway (an Obama appointee will eventually be confirmed), we'll be done.
I like it.
May 1, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two words, President Obama!
Anita
Hill
~
May 1, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we spell "surprise"?
May 1, 2009 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting...
Funny how Obama feels that the next justice of the Supreme Court that he will soon appoint "should be dedicated to the rule of law" and “who shares my respect for the constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.”
Now, this is interesting to me because Obama refuses to prosecute Bush/Cheney CIA torturers even though this behaviour clearly violates US and International law. Keep in mind Obama is not a King, (or at least he isn't supposed to be), and he himself is violating the laws of this country by helping these people avoid prosecution.
So, here we are..."The Obama King", who refuses to uphold the rule of law himself, as well as protect and defend the Constitution is about to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, who also is expected to uphold the rule of law, as well as defend the Constitution...
What the f**k am I missing here???
May 2, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you missing? Basic function of the various offices in our Federal government.
It is up to the DOJ, not the President to decide whether to pursue prosecution or not.
May 2, 2009 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That should have read:
Mea culpa.
May 2, 2009 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
[quote]Now, this is interesting to me because Obama refuses to prosecute Bush/Cheney CIA torturers even though this behaviour [sic] clearly violates US and International law.[/quote]
It's not that simple. The interrogators were convinced by scholars and their superiors that it was not torture.
We know from the Milgram Studies on authority and torture during the 1950s that it's actually rather easy to convince ordinary people to commit torture. Milgram's experiments showed that 60% of people can be convinced to become willing to administer electroshock to 400v even to someone screaming in agony. All it requires is for the authorities to skillfully manipulate ordinary people. That 60% value has been verified again and again by other studies.
Knowing how easy it is for skillful manipulation by authorities to manipulate ordinary and good people to commit torture, I don't think it's reasonable to treat that as criminal.
I do think the legal advice and policy guidelines were immoral. Whether they're criminal, i.e. prosecutable offenses, is difficult to say, which is why I plan to read up on the matter as things evolve over the coming months.
May 2, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Balance off the right-wing madmen on the court!
Select Rev. Wright--inspiring, truly left-wing--will stick it to Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas (also know as the Fascist Four)
May 2, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
CN "Well, I guess it won't be a Republican. "
Of course not, Republicans believe justice should be blind. You know one of those pesky American principles.
Democrats believe that justice should be based on the color of your skin, how much money you have, or gender
MCC " This will be a great chance for the GOP to stand up and show what they really stand"
Yep, the Constitution.
GTFOOH "What in God's name are we going to do without someone guarding against activist judges?"
Have judges creating laws that usurp our rights. Isn't that what Democrats want?
May 2, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck off troll.
May 3, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink