Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
White House Formalizes Supreme Court Short List
May 07, 2009 4:43 PM
The White House has formalized its short list of Supreme Court contenders and asked six prospects to provide personal background information, with an intensive vetting process well underway, according to sources close to the process.
The leading contenders on the short list: federal appeals court Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Wood, and Solicitor General Elena Kagan, sources close to the process say.
The White House hopes to move quickly on the nomination, with some in the administration signaling an announcement was possible within the next week or two. But a source involved in the process cautioned that the vetting for all of the candidates except Kagan (who was recently vetted as part of her nomination to be Solicitor General) could take longer.
That’s partly because of the thorough process, which is being run outside the White House and is similar to the vetting process for Obama’s vice presidential pick, multiple sources say.
Top contenders have received exhaustive questionnaires, similar to those for Obama's Cabinet-level positions but with additional focused questions targeted at legal ethics, sources say, while lawyers are combing through tax returns, speeches and opinions.
No clear favorite has emerged, but the pick has prompted an internal struggle between legal and political officials within the administration, sources say.
Political officials like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel are favoring Sotomayor, who would be an historic pick as the Court’s first Hispanic justice.
Obama, the thinking goes, could score huge points with Hispanics, an important and increasingly powerful constituency, by nominating Sotomayor or another Latino. Sotomayor has a compelling life story, moving from the projects to the nation’s most elite educational institutions and then onto the federal bench.
But Sotomayor has not dazzled or distinguished herself on the appeals court as a forceful theoretician or writer—something Obama, the former constitutional law scholar who will drive this decision, is likely to want in his Supreme Court nominee, sources close to the process said. Moreover, she’s also been criticized for abrasiveness—which could be problematic on the high court.
Legal officials in the Administration want Obama to tap a candidate who would be a more obvious force on the Court, bringing both intellectual prowess and a proven ability to build coalitions. They favor either Kagan or Wood—prospects who could be considered judicial rock stars capable of going toe to toe with Scalia and Roberts.
Wood has a reputation as a careful jurist who, while liberal on social issues, is highly respected for her craftsmanship. She is an expert in the areas of international trade and antitrust, and a co-author of the leading textbook on trade regulation. The biggest strike against her is her age: She is 58.
Kagan, too, commands wide respect for her legal acumen, and she has a proven record of reaching out to conservatives—and as such has a stable of support on the Right. As dean of Harvard Law School, she raided the law school faculties at the University of Chicago and University of Virginia, bringing bright young conservative legal talent to Cambridge. She’s just 49 years old, a plus and a negative: She doesn’t have Wood’s experience.
But both Wood and Kagan, the argument goes, would be expected to be more effective in building coalitions and reaching out to moderate Justice Kennedy.
There’s something to be said for that argument. Justice Breyer—a liberal, but no Bill Brennan--was tremendously effective with Justice O’Connor, who drifted to the left over the years. Breyer didn’t exactly thrill liberals when Clinton nominated him, but a more liberal justice could have ended up pushing O’Connor away. Instead, Breyer quietly and persuasively drew her over.
There’s also this argument against Sotomayor for the first nomination: Obama will get another nominee. Why squander an Hispanic pick now, so far from the election and with such a solid majority of Democrats in the Senate? Save the Hispanic vote for closer to 2012, and after immigration reform has failed--when Hispanics need a bone.
Moreover, the argument goes, with Democrats in solid control of the Senate, it makes no sense to pick a nominee now who Republicans would be hard pressed to oppose--like the first Hispanic justice.
Ronald Reagan made that mistake with Antonin Scalia. In 1986, Reagan had a Republican majority when he nominated Scalia, the first Italian-American justice, who was warmly embraced by Democrats (Robert Byrd invited him to West Virginia for an appearance) and confirmed unanimously.
But in his next nomination a year later, Democrats had control of the Senate---and blocked Robert Bork. It would have been much more difficult for Democrats to block the first-ever Italian-American justice. Had Reagan nominated Bork first, it's widely believed by the Left and Right, he would have gotten both Bork and Scalia confirmed.
It’s true that Reagan scored major points when he fulfilled a campaign promise and used his first nomination to tap O’Connor, the first woman justice. But Obama didn’t campaign on the idea of nominating an Hispanic, and like Reagan, he’s going to get another chance with at least one more nomination in his first term.
May 7, 2009 | Permalink | User Comments (67)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"something Obama, the former constitutional law scholar "
cut the BS.. Obama taught the intro class to constitutional law.. he's never written a published paper, he's never been peer reviewed.
He didnt' teach theory. He taught the most basic class.
He's not a scholar. He has no -zip-nada -not a single advanced class in law beyond the run of mill law degree.
He's your basic lawyer who never practised.
He is no scholar
Posted by: Trend | May 7, 2009 7:18:26 PM
Keep up the great work, Jan! I love your book! When are you going to write another?
Posted by: JohnJ | May 7, 2009 8:10:13 PM
Trend-
He did not teach "intro" con law (equal protection/due process and election law are not "intro" courses). And even if he did, if you teach "intro" con law at UofC, you almost certainly know a heck of a lot about con law.
You may have concerns as to his view OF con law. Fine. But calling him a "constitutional law scholar" is undoubtedly appropriate.
Posted by: Jones | May 7, 2009 9:07:20 PM
Constitutional law scholar?
"At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer,... His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance."
"His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law."
Posted by: Ninya | May 7, 2009 9:37:04 PM
And the other three are...?
Posted by: Paul F | May 7, 2009 9:53:16 PM
I like Wood and Kagan! However, I'd like a surprise pick -- like Bill or Hilary even better!
Posted by: Joe C | May 7, 2009 10:21:41 PM
Dear Paul F
The three are:
due process and equal protection; voting rights; racism and law.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Posted by: Ninya | May 7, 2009 10:29:17 PM
So who are the other three? Good article btw.
Posted by: Seth Jackson | May 7, 2009 10:39:22 PM
So how many of these picks have forgotten to pay their taxes?
Posted by: Melanie | May 8, 2009 4:01:20 AM
I see Jeffrey Rosen's hit piece on Sotomayor has reached you too.
Disgusting.
Rosen is being HEAVILY criticized for this piece. He used anonymous sources who might well have a personal agenda, he deliberately misquoted a compliment from Carbanes and turned it into a smear. He misinterpreted a footnote and read it as an impicit critique on Sotomayor while it was a critique on a lawyer.
But Rosen's work is done. A woman who earned her A.B. from Princeton University summa cum laude; won the Pyne Prize, the highest general award given to Princeton undergraduates; obtained her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979; was an editor of the Yale Law Journal; and has a stellar career in law "is not that smart".
Right. That makes sense.
Posted by: Willem van Oranje | May 8, 2009 9:09:20 AM
What about Al Gore? I like the guy and he got the shaft in 2000. The man dresses well and has a noble peace prize. He is a gentleman and I liked the movie he made about the ice melting somewhere in an ocean. Mr. Gore has experience on capital hill were he was a senator and he took after his dad the vice president. What pleases me the most about Mr. Gore is he invented the internets way back when it was nothing but a bunch of tubes running around the place, that really shows he is smart and knows a thing or two about how to deal with criminals and terrorists
Posted by: datu puki | May 8, 2009 9:15:17 AM
Do you have some named sources detailing Sotomayor's supposed lack of "intellectual prowess"? Have you read her decisions to make a determination on this matter? Your "Voice of God" writing does not inspire me with much confidence.
Posted by: Jonathan Miller | May 8, 2009 9:17:16 AM
Kagan appears the smartest pick on this one. She's very young, unquestionably highly intelligent, has cred as a persuasive and skilled broker of warring factions and, unlike Sotomayor, would bring a confirm process unmarred by a politically damaging focus and debate over Sotomayor's demeanor, her "policy" giggles - and worse, her approval of that ugly firefighters' affirmative action fiasco and alleged "burying" of that case for political reasons. The courts' conservatives aren't going to listen seriously to an intellectual lightweight or respond well to Bronx brass. If BO is so bent on ethnicity, then Wardlaw is there.
Posted by: Coach | May 8, 2009 9:55:55 AM
"And the other three are...?"
And the other three candidates being vetted are?
Posted by: John M. Perkins | May 8, 2009 9:56:04 AM
So, the article is supposed to make us convinced that Obama should not choose Sotomayor. Anyone else is good, right?
This follows a similar hatchet job on her by TNR. And, you seem to use those slimy attacks as evidence yourself. (For more details on that, see read Greenwald at Salon.)
Why are you corporate media types afraid of her? It makes me feel like I should root for her, honestly.
Posted by: DCDan | May 8, 2009 9:56:57 AM
We should check the ecthics of the proposed justices - Charlie Rangle, John Murtha and Chris Dodd could chair this. Geitner could check on their tax status.
Posted by: jamescbuilder | May 8, 2009 10:48:18 AM
Kathleen Sullivan is the sort of justice I am pulling for. She is bright. Super bright.
Plus, imagine Thurgood Marshall going toe-to-toe with Justice Roger Taney, author of Dred Scott. Well, Sullivan going toe-to-toe with Scalia would be fabulous.
The super-smart gay jurist combatting the wingnut. Who wouldn't love that setting?!
Posted by: teo | May 8, 2009 10:48:18 AM
I think Obama should nominate the first African American woman justice, since there have been two white women justices, but no black women justices. I think he should nominate Leah Sears of Atlanta. I know he won't, because he is too afraid of appearing to favor African Americans, so he goes out of his way to ignore them.
Posted by: KMB | May 8, 2009 10:56:19 AM
DCDan, you won't find a network more liberal or more supportive of Obarmy's swerve to the left than the corporate media at ABC...When is the kissy-kissy mainstream media going to realize that Obama's team is riddled with tax cheats, corrupt pandering pork-pushing pols with slime in their fund-raising backgrounds, and radical Hate America First loonies?
Isn't putting your children and grandchildren in debt for the rest of their lives while thuggishly intimidating investors and taking control of major industries enough of a wakeup call? Fascism is defined as government controlling all aspects of the industrial, financial and economic life of the country.
Posted by: doug in colorado | May 8, 2009 10:58:19 AM
"ANN COULTER" ?! --there's one in every crowd, I guess.
Posted by: rayy | May 8, 2009 10:59:52 AM
Post a comment
