Obama May Seek Out Centrist to Replace Souter on Supreme Court

May 3 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, weighing advice from both the left and right on his first Supreme Court choice, is likely to seek a judicial version of himself: a moderate coalition-builder.

In making his first imprint on the court, Obama will choose from a list of candidates who would add ethnic or gender diversity. The most discussed possibilities -- federal appeals court judges Diane Wood and Sonia Sotomayor and U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan -- are well-credentialed lawyers whose records suggest they would become moderate-to-liberal justices.





http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090503/pl_bloomberg/aywe5vw98mta

I would pick the most liberal judge I could get away with to balance the nut jobs already there are make the court itself centrist.

Dupe

We need to BALANCE the court, and that means we need someone RELIABLY LIBERAL. Jeeze. We have a fucking giant majority, a mandate from the public and we're STILL pandering to the corporatists and religionists.

I think I'm going to get an article published on Yahoo News that says Obama will appoint a kangaroo to the Supreme Court so animal rights and the environment are represented--and see how many people bite.

Still, since our "leadership" has shafted us for decades it's all too believable that they'll do it again. And, hey, this is a discussion board. Is it OK with you if I get my nickel in?

Let the man make a decision, then decide whether he's "shafted" you or not.

Thanks.



Nice basketball team, btw.

This "story" is based on nothing more than pure speculation and impressionistic crap.

In other words, don't take it seriously.

I only ask that you wait until he makes the appointment before you find something to get outraged about.

At times, this place is like if Free Republic gained the ability to think critically.

is more like Yahoo hopes Obama will seek a centrist, haha. Though I agree with Rachel that there is a striking contrast between the media with Bush, and their "He will need to pick a strong conservative", while they would never say that Obama should pick a strong liberal.

and political scholars. None of them have a clue as to who the President is going to pick and why. I don't know why they even start this crap. The President isn't going to pick some rabid right winger, or someone who isn't liberal.

Republicans are totally on board with her nomination.

before we rip his throat out?

:eyes:

Presumably, at least. That's not the same as saying that Obama's waiting with baited breath to see what DU might decide... but as a politician he always has to have an eye, or ear, or whatever, attuned to the political winds. Boards like this are, presumably, part of those political winds that are monitored.

In other words, we windbags can, if we blowhard enough, at least whip at the windflag (or whatever the hell those flag things at airports that gauge wind direction are called) of his political awareness.
If we all just STFU and let him make decisions in a vacuum, then we're just being passive followers... and the only voices that will be heard are those from the "other" side.

Why are so many here so convinced that Obama can't process the cacophony of voices on the internet, analyze them in his own way, and then go on to make his own decision? Why are there so many here that want to keep us from voicing any opinions preemptively to a decision? Are there so many that have such a low opinion of Obama's talents at processing ideas and points of view that they're worried that he'll be "spooked" into making a "bad decision" by "voices" on the internet?... Or are all those who would have us shut up until he has made a decision just afraid of the "Republican boogey men" sifting through our voices for a talking point? As if the mess that is the Republican party now could even recognize a talking point that would be of use to them?...

So, yes... let the power of DU influence him.

and we'll be hearing about everyone and their dog's opinion before this is over. Then, we get to do it all over again a few more times-hopefully.

tomorrow they will call him a liberal. Fuck the MSM.

He will pick someone to the left of Souter.

they can find. But Democrats? Oh, NOOOOO!!! We can't have any liberals!! Everything we do has to be appealing to the right wingers and the media sycophants!! :puke::puke:

During his election...

If we want real liberal leadership, we might want to actually vote one in someday instead of constantly selling ourselves out.

No single payer health care

No bailout of taxpayers, only of banks

A continuation of Bush policies on spying, rendition, and state secrets...

But, hey, let us eat cake. At a 68% approval rating, the people just seem to scarf it up.

The sooner we realize that these 'centerists' politicians are just one side of a two sided fascist coin, and we start actually demanding politicians who represent our views...oh wait...we don't do that...

Repukes are never expected to compromise or bend their ideological point of view. Democrats must ALWAYS seek bipartisanship; be moderate; choose moderate or centrist Democrats. Repukes are never expected the same. Different standards! And that's why they can spew this rhetoric about the country being "center-right," and the media lapdogs just pick it up and run with it. They all continue to repeat the lie that the country is more conservative than it really is. And sadly, many Democrats fall right in line...

Powell, Stevens. It really isn't a virtue to give an extremist from right or left a lifetime appointment. Arguably our best justices have been compassionate scholars with a love for liberty not given to knee jerk reactions in either direction.

I don't mean to suggests that Democrats haven't appointed some great justices, too. Roosevelt gave us Black, Frankfurter and Douglas (among others), Kennedy gave us White, Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall and Clinton named Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the high court.

Souter is one of the more liberal members. Four of the justices - Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts - are off the wall rabid right-wingers. We must have a strong progressive to start to bring some balance.

Enough with the "centrist" crap for now.

As Richard Armitage once said to someone who thought he could bridge the gap with the neocons, "there is no fucking bridge."

Can we not just get someone tough who can be to the left of center? These people are not even in the majority anymore. They'd fight tooth and nail for a right wing zealot and get them in. I'm sick of catering to these people. They're at 21% approval....fuck them all to hell.

Why don't we do our thing, and start writing to the White House and to newspapers saying what we want? Maybe our President wouldn't mind a bit of support on this!

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR TOOLS

http://www.democrats.org/page/speakout/letterstoeditors
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/

Write the President! http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

The media is wishing that the SC becomes less liberal. That is why you see all these articles saying without evidence that Obama is seeking to appoint a moderate or centrist. We simply have no idea of the kind of judge Obama wants.

We do know what Bloomberg et. al. want.

Souter was supposed to be conservative but turned out to be surprisingly centrist.

If Dems pick centrists and GOPers pick right-wing wackos, then we have failed. And the court will remain a right-wing, anti-liberty institution.

No more of this centrist shit. He should pick an unabashed liberal, just as Republicans have picked unabashed right-wing wackos.