Obama losing chance to reshape judiciary

By GottaLaff

I have a lawyer friend on Twitter (he goes by "Rawls") who read the same L.A. Times article I did, and was very disturbed by it, as I was. He then linked me to a New Yorker piece by Jeffrey Toobin. You can read excerpts of that below.

But first, here are Rawls' comments from one of my earlier posts, the one about Justice Clarence Thomas' Tea Bagger wife:

At this juncture I will make the following point (Joe Scarborough loves this style of argument, only I will do it better): Thomas will never recuse himself for this issue. You will see it go away. But, Thomas opinions are, in a light most favorable to him, nonsensical. At the end of the day, he'll step down when he wants. In the meantime, we need to focus on the crap that will come from the Right when Stevens and Ginsburg step down. The craziest filibuster is yet to come. Write it down. The next two appointments will create a logjam in the Senate you've never seen.

He makes a good point.

Now for the little not-so-bitty unnoticed news item that has bothered us so much:

An early chance for the Obama administration to reshape the nation's judiciary -- and counter gains made in the federal courts by conservatives -- appears close to slipping away, due to a combination of White House inattention and Republican opposition. [...]

During President Obama's first year, judicial nominations trickled out of the White House at a far slower pace than in President George W. Bush's first year. Bush announced 11 nominees for federal appeals courts in the fourth month of his tenure. Obama didn't nominate his 11th appeals court judge until November, his 10th month in office.

Moreover, Obama nominees are being confirmed at a much slower rate than those of his predecessor, largely because of the gridlocked Senate. [...]

If the Democrats lose seats -- or if Republicans take control of the body -- then Obama likely would be forced to appoint centrist judges more acceptable to the GOP.

There are details, numbers, comparisons, and information that you can read about in that piece. The point is, Bush managed to appoint a lot of judges who are shaping our legal system, and the entire country, and President Obama has not followed suit. He's been busy, he's faced gridlock, he's got people to see, places to go...

But hey.

Our lives are affected by this. Our democracy is affected by this.

And of course, there's that little Supreme Court issue that will arise. From the New Yorker article:

In Stevens’s absence, leadership of the Court’s liberals would fall, by seniority, to Ginsburg, but she is also elderly and has suffered from a range of health problems. Even if President Obama appointed a like-minded replacement for Stevens, that person, while taking his seat, would not fill his role.

Stevens is an unlikely liberal icon. When he was appointed, he told me recently, he thought of himself as a Republican and always had [...]

But, more than anything, his career shows how the Court has become a partisan battlefield. In that spirit, Roberts last week denounced President Obama’s criticism of the Court in his State of the Union address, saying that the occasion had “degenerated to a political pep rally.” When Stevens leaves, the Supreme Court will be just another place where Democrats and Republicans fight. [...]

I asked him if the center of gravity had moved to the right since he became a Justice. “There’s no doubt,” he said. “You don’t have to ask me that. Look at Citizens United.” He added, “If it is not necessary to decide a case on a very broad constitutional ground, when other grounds are available, then doesn’t that create the likelihood that people will think you’re not following the rules?”[...]

In all areas, Stevens has favored gradual change over sudden lurches and precedent over dramatic overrulings. But, especially since Roberts took over as Chief Justice, Stevens has found himself confronting colleagues who have a very different approach—an aggressive, line-drawing conservatism that appears bent on remaking great swaths of Supreme Court precedent. [...]

In Bush v. Gore, Stevens framed his colleagues’ decision as an insult to the judicial role, one that could, he wrote, “only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.” In words that became better known than anything in the collectively written majority decision, he continued:

Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

[...] As for Obama, Stevens said, “I have a great admiration for him, and certainly think he’s capable of picking successfully, you know, doing a good job of filling vacancies.” He added, “You can say I will retire within the next three years. I’m sure of that.”

We cannot lose an opportunity to reshape the judiciary, because if we do, that is tantamount to tacit approval, or at the very least acceptance, of the status quo. And that is unacceptable.

VIDEO: Blanche Lincoln's rival, Bill Halter, on The Ed Show

By GottaLaff

Ed Schultz:

"This is the fastest start by any candidate since the November elections."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

My previous post on Halter here.

VIDEO: Halter Raises $600,000 in 24 Hours, Releases First TV Ad

By GottaLaff



Arkansas, Blanche, watch out. There's a liberal a-comin':

In the 24 hours after announcing his plans to challenge Sen. Blanche Lincoln in the Democratic primary, Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter raised more than $600,000, mostly through the efforts of a coalition of progressive groups who are directing their donors to support his campaign.

Oh, it gets better. The AFL-CIO pledged $3 million in independent expenditures to get Blanche outta there.

Check out his ad above. He's full of energy and rarin' to go.

Blanche Lincoln's challenger, Bill Halter, supports public option

By GottaLaff

Greg Sargent has the scoop, and what a scoop it is:

In an interview with me just now, Halter made it official: He fully supports the public option, and expects it to be an issue in the campaign.

Asked directly if he supported a public plan that would give folks access to Medicare or something like it, Halter answered: “Yes.”

He also supports using reconciliation for both a public option and to pass a health care reform bill in general... and, ta-da! the Employee Free Choice Act.

To find out why this goes beyond simply whether or not he'd be one more vote for what we want, read the rest here.

Hint: The "L" word.

Most Liberal and Most Conservative Lawmakers

Always an interesting report. Via Taegan-

The National Journal's annual vote ranking study is out.

Liberals: "The most liberal members in the Senate include Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Roland Burris (D-IL), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), all tied for first place. In the House, 8 members share the distinction -- Reps. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Gwen Moore (D-WI), John Olver (D-MA), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Mel Watt (D-NC) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) are tied for the top spot."

Conservatives: "Unlike Dems, GOPers get to fete a clear winner in the most-conservative sweepstakes: This year, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) takes the prize. He's closely followed by Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Jim Bunning (R-KY) and Tom Coburn (R-OK). In the House, Reps. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX), John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Mac Thornberry (R-TX) share the prize."

Liberal Unrest A Myth

Underscores the fact that even the blogosphere is a self contained vacuum unto itself sometimes. Via Taegan-

A new Public Policy Polling survey concludes that "liberal unhappiness with Barack Obama is still largely anecdotal and not very widespread" after finding that 95% of liberal Democrats approve of the president and 3% disapprove.

Liberals also support Obama on health care reform, 88% to 7%, even though the president did not push for single payer or a strong public option.

Democrats Will Be Hurt If No Health Care Bill Passes

This would be the most derrworthy headline of the year if it wasn't necessary to point it out to the jellyfish in Congress. Via Taegan-

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds the political repercussions for Congressional Democrats of not passing a health care bill could be severe.

Democrats currently lead Republicans 46% to 38% on the generic Congressional ballot. But when asked how they would vote if no health care bill is passed, respondents split 40% to 40%.

Analysis: "Most voters aren't following this debate really closely and don't understand the nuances of it all. At the end of the day voters are likely to see this as either a bill was passed or it was not. In some sense that should get the Blanche Lincolns and Mary Landrieus of the world in line- they're probably going to face just as much trouble back home whether there's a public option in there or not. But failing that Democrats would still be better off, at least for next year's election, with a weaker bill than no bill at all."

Cillizza's title, not mine: The Left Rises Up Against Obama

By GottaLaff

I'm not rising up against Obama? Are you rising up against Obama? Anyone you know rising up? I may question him now and then, but rising up? I don't even feel like getting out of my chair for a snack. Rising up is simply out of the question.

Anyway, I have a theory: After the very welcome hearings today, and with more coming, and with no objection to those from the White House, I believe President Obama may be letting the facts unfurl in this way, inevitably leading right into the investigations/prosecutions we have been clamoring for.

Yes, my gut reaction to his reversal about the photos was, hey, what about all that talk of transparency? But despite my impatience to see justice done, at this point I'm, once again, albeit reluctantly, in wait-and-see mode. Why? Because most of the time, Obama is two steps ahead of the rest of us.

President Barack Obama's reversal on the release of detainee photos has angered the liberal left, a perceived poke in the eye that has left some questioning Obama's commitment to progressive policies.

In brief remarks before heading to Arizona to deliver a commencement speech at Arizona State University, Obama argued that "the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals" and, in fact, the most likely effect would be "to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

Liberals -- particularly in the blogosphere -- immediately expressed their displeasure with the decision.

"Since he's been inaugurated, Barack Obama has demonstrated a remarkable desire to keep evidence of Bush crimes generally, and Bush's torture regime specifically, concealed," said Jane Hamsher, the founder of the Fire Dog Lake blog in an email exchange with the Fix. "Some of his supporters won't care. But others believe he is betraying promises he made on the campaign trail about transparency, and there is a growing sense that he is becoming complicit in the crimes he is attempting desperately to shield from public scrutiny." [...]

Talking Points Memo is leading its site with the headline "Obama Admin Falls Back On Bushism: Abuse Pics' Release Would Hurt Troops".

On Daily Kos, Joan McCarter, a contributing editor to the site, described the move as "an unwelcome and probably futile policy reversal" by Obama [...]

And Digby, another prominent liberal blogger, called White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' explanation of why the Administration is reversing position as rising to "Fleischeresque levels of fatuousness".

To be clear: it's not immediately clear that liberals are abandoning the president in droves. Rather, as happens with almost every president, elements of the base are coming to grips with the idea that Obama may not be the liberal hero that people thought he was when he was first elected.

Okay, stop right there. Why would anyone have thought he was a "liberal hero"? He speaks of himself as more moderate, I've posted as much several times over the past year or so. He's always made a huge deal about reaching out, compromise, meeting the other side halfway. There are no surprises here.

This is not to say that if he backtracks on a promise, he won't hear about it. But generally, President Obama has never been as liberal as the corporate media, and even some Democrats, like to think.

The more likely scenario in terms of political consequences from these decisions is that the fervent desire to elect Obama within the party's base will dissipate somewhat as liberals grow (and stay) alienated with the compromises the President makes over the next four years.

Or, we'll realize that he's a very smart man who plays well with others, and realize that nobody will ever agree with any of us 100%.