Underplayed Story of the Day

Way back on A14 of the NYT is this scoop by Nick Lewis giving us the name of President Obama’s first appeals court appointment: David F. Hamilton of Indiana, whom Lewis describes as highly regarded and moderate. Also significant is the fact that Obama intends to announce his appointments one at a time, rather than in a large group, as President Bush did. Bush’s action sent a signal that he meant to give the courts an ideological makeover. So why is all of this so important?:

The administration official said part of the reason for making the Hamilton nomination the administration’s first public entry into the often contentious field of judicial selection was to serve “as a kind of signal” about the kind of nominees Mr. Obama will select. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the nomination had not been officially made.

The White House is planning to announce a handful of other candidates over the next few weeks to fill some of the 17 vacancies on the appeals courts, which are just below the level of the Supreme Court. On most of the 12 regional appeals courts, including on the Seventh Circuit for which Judge Hamilton has been nominated, a majority of the sitting judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

Mr. Obama’s selections will be closely watched to see what role he tries to play in shaping the ideology of the federal courts, which have influence over some of the nation’s most intensely felt social issues. The administration official said the White House was hoping to reduce the partisan contentiousness of judicial confirmation battles of recent years.

“We would like to put the history of the confirmation wars behind us,” the official said.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty No. 2), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay-marriage advocates — as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • Matt

    Looks like Obama is delivering on that promise of change…

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I find this sentence more significant than any speculation regarding the nominee’s ideology:
    .
    The Obama administration has also restored the longstanding role of the American Bar Association in reviewing nominees before they are publicly announced.
    .
    The task of actually applying Constitutional tests to statutes is significantly less difficult than people make it out to be. It only becomes a problem when the clear text of the Constitution runs counter to the current public will. It’s worth noting that this is why its necessary to have a Constitution in the first place. Without a document in place to enumerate our inalienable rights, the tendency of majority blocs to oppress minority viewpoints would be nearly irresistable.
    .
    By reinvolving the Bar Association, Obama provides a nod to the Reality Based Community.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    He did receive attention for two rulings striking down actions of conservatives in the Indiana legislature. In 2005, he made news by ruling that the legislature was prohibited from beginning its sessions with overtly Christian prayers.
    .
    This stuff in particalar irks me. Not only does this violate the Constitution but it goes rather firmly against Scripture as well:
    .
    “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
    .

  • gysgt213

    “The administration official said the White House was hoping to reduce the partisan contentiousness of judicial confirmation battles of recent years.”
    .
    Here’s how this will play out. The republicans will use every trick in the book just to flat out block any Obama appointments. The mainstream press will give them their usual perch on their various platforms to make outlandish and contridictory statements against Obama’s selections.
    .
    The republcians have no need to waste time and energy developing ligitment complaints. Comments like “I don’t think we should allow the ACLU to run our judicial system will go unchallenged, treated as perfectly reasonable opposition and allowed to be repeated over and over again. And the press will their usual assist by asking the same sort of questions themselves.
    .
    Obama’s team will figure out they have to get in the mud to fight back and the press will be all over him for going back on his promise to stop the childish games. At the same time the meme will develop that Obama is taking the judicial system to the far left and his people will have to answer that charge at every turn.
    .
    So to the Obama team I say. Good luck with that.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Dirks
    .
    Weird also that violating the establishment clause is somehow “conservative.”

  • g2-97116f109860558481f7e5b3b50ad013

    First of all I would lie to thank WordPress for the wonderful user name.

    I think gysgt213 nailed it, though.

  • kathy

    May be underplayed, but not a surprise, right? Obama disappointed liberals when he ran the Law Review, and he may again. He’ll look for people who don’t have an ideological ax to grind.

    KT – very sweet picture of you and your brother at First Communion which was in dead tree time but not, I think, online.

  • kathy

    momentarily forgot we don’t have paragraph breaks. What a nuisance.
    .
    Gunny – don’t you think it’s possible the Republicans will thank their lucky stars Obama’s not choosing flaming liberals? After all, if they’re not going to support his appointments no matter what, what’s to keep him from saying “be like that” and tacking left?

  • meellerbee

    KT, I think gysgt nailed it.There is no way the Republicans don’t use every trick to block the appointments. Just like they are putting anonymous holds on his executive appointees ri ght now.And, of course, your colleagues in the press won’t label it obstruction. And, Time won’t call them on it, because like the Al Gore situation, you’ll feel to afraid to fan the fire. Plus ca change . . .

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    For me the truth is this, I don’t give a sh*t if the guy is a DFH or a WingNut as long as he does his damn job the way it is supposed to be done instead of being an activist either way. He was named to the court by Clinton and from the article he is highly regarded which was not the case with Bush’s appointees. The two cases they pointed out weren’t truly liberal or conservative, or at least they shouldn’t be, they were constitutional questions which shouldn’t have a biased and as far as I can tell in both cases he ruled on the side of the constitution. As long as President Obama appoints those same kinds of judges I wouldn’t have a problem at all with it.

  • kathy

    Gunny – I gather from what I’ve read that that is in fact the kind of judges he intends to appoint (of course this might make it easier for the Republicans to be obstructive, now that I think of it – they know he’s not likely to name immoderate judges). No president in modern times has known the pool of candidates better or been better equipped to make assessments of their thinking.

  • kathy

    oops – that’s sgwhite, not gunny I just replied to.

  • http://privcorr.blogspot.com/ wvng

    I’ll join the chorus and agree with Gunny. Might also remind that Hatch and his ilk said/insisted Obama should appoint all the wingnut Bush appointees the Senate refused to confirm.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    which shouldn’t have a biased and as far as I can tell in both cases he ruled on the side of the constitution.
    .
    You have to understand that in fundie circles “on the side of the Constitution” is a liberal position.

  • http://privcorr.blogspot.com/ wvng

    The mainstream press will give them their usual perch on their various platforms to make outlandish and contridictory statements against Obama’s selections. In support of gunny’s thesis, I would submit that the only pundit/journalist who said that CNN had no business giving Cheney an uncritical platform to spout his deceptions was Richard Wolffe on Countdown last night.
    .
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29729001#29729001
    .
    The rest of the media where shocked, shocked I tell you, when Gibbs was dismissive of Cheney yesterday. As DougJ said: Dick Cheney still has higher status in the Village than Barack Obama. It’s that simple.

  • FlownOver

    If the Loonies (no offense intended to Canadian currency) are going to take their usual tack of foaming at the mouth and issuing delusional denunciations, the course of appointing comparative judicial moderates makes perfect sense. It gives the opposition additional opportunity to expose themselves as extremists lacking all credibility. The public will figure out the truth of the matter soon enough.
    .
    The MSM? Maybe not so much.

  • kathy

    wvng – it was Ed Henry, I think, who asked Gibbs if this wasn’t disrespectful of the former vice president, and I thought: It’s okay to suggest the sitting President is making us vulnerable to terrorists’ attacks, but it’s not okay to compare Cheney to a wing nut he says he “loves”???? WTF?

  • Karen Tumulty

    Kathy writes:
    .
    KT – very sweet picture of you and your brother at First Communion which was in dead tree time but not, I think, online.
    .
    Totally OT: That picture resurrected a major grievance of my childhood: saddle shoes. I was in corrective shoes, and my mom wouldn’t buy me the cute mary janes the other girls had, even for first communion. and by the way, i’m STILL pigeon-toed.

  • http://privcorr.blogspot.com/ wvng

    kathy, yep. And it was Chip Reid who said: Can I ask you, when you referred to the former Vice President, that was a really hard-hitting, kind of sarcastic response you had. This is a former Vice President of the United States. Is that the attitude—is that the sanctioned tone toward the former Vice President of the United States from this White House now?
    .
    Cheney is to the U.S. brand as the London AIG derivative brokers are to the world economy. He deserves no less scorn than they are receiving. Try to imagine the public response to a fawning interview on CNBC with the AIG crowd? “Is AIG great, or the greatest ever?”

  • sacredh

    Being the bleeding heart liberal that I am, I’d like to see appointments made that rub the dirt in the face of the conservatives. The semi-sane part of me thinks that if neither the left or the right is happy with the appointments, the American people as a whole win.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Again, I think that this notion of left vs right is being grossly overplayed.
    .
    In most cases of legal controversy, unlike the larger political arena, there does exist a single correct answer. Any two scrupulous judges should arrive at the same conclusion totally independent of how they may vote in elections.
    .
    The problem arises because supporting certain particular desired outcomes requires unscrupulous judges.
    .
    Judge Moore of Alabama comes to mind right away….

  • stuartzechman

    KT:
    .
    This “The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the nomination had not been officially made.” is at least giving news consumers a rationale for anonymity, although not a great one.
    .
    Perhaps the Obama Administration will do more to inform us of the symbolism or lack thereof than “a kind of signal” –perhaps and actual statement of intent that can be judged against the record– when the nomination becomes official.
    .
    Perhaps they’ll just be content to let anonymous officials tell the political press off the record how journalists are supposed to interpret events, and hope that the press continues to be a conduit for Obama’s press messages in exchange for more “scoops” like these.

  • Karen Tumulty

    SZ: More truthful explanation: Official spoke on the condition of anonymity, because that was the only way I could get him/her to talk to me at all.

  • stuartzechman

    KT
    .
    Thanks so much for your honesty and response to commentary.
    .
    You know your gifts are thoroughly wasted on Time-Warner, right?
    .
    Alright, I take that back –not wasted, just not optimally utilized.
    .
    You need a blog of your own, KT.

  • Art Pepper

    wvng: Yeah, but Cheney probably went to the Gridiron dinners.
    .
    kathy: Only if the GOP worked by thinking about the issues and then raising objections based thereon. Instead they think up the objections first.

  • sacredh

    The GOP will continue to demand appointees that adhere to their point of view because no matter how many seats they lose, how many polls show them out of touch with the general public or how much their base shrinks, they continue to think that they represent the majority. They’ll continue to plot strategies that have no chance of working and congratulate themselves on their shrewdness. The smaller their party gets, the larger they think it is.

  • spob

    KT, you’re giving him an awful lot of credit, when it’s just one judge. Clinton appointed some moderates too, but he also appointed/nominated a boatload of real prizes like Richard Paez, Marsha Berzon, Eric Clay, Ronnie White (who failed), Rosemary Barkett, Chatigny and other notables. Obama is going to send some real lefties to the federal bench.

    As for Obama’s desire to be less-partisan, well, that’s really rich coming from someone who tried to filibuster Justice Alito.

  • yutsano

    You need a blog of your own, KT.
    -
    I think if she had a method of supporting herself and the Swampkids on just a blog alone this would be an awesome idea. Any thoughts on getting the financials lined up to make this a possibility?

  • sacredh

    SZ & yutsano: I like the idea of KT getting her own blog too. Dead tree media isn’t looking all that healthy right now. Why don’t we all kick in a paycheck and buy TIME? I could always sell some of my pain meds to Rush to raise some cash. Let me check with my MIL too. She has so many pills upstairs she’d make Elvis jealous. She’d never miss a few hundred.

  • yutsano

    You know, I’m seriously debating whether my 401(k) is worth investing in or not. I suppose I could manage a few thousand dollars in seed money. Or maybe one of those situations where a few folks loan KT a relatively small amount and she pays us all back little by little until she gets established. Yes? No? Maybe?

  • sacredh

    It’s worth looking into. The only real problem I can see is that KT is too close to the center and in all the times I’ve seen her on the tube, she’s never waved her arms around while shouting or drooling. It’s worked for Limbaugh and he’s rolling in the cash. KT also has a little too much self respect to go off the deep end like the Coultergeist. Maybe we can get her to work on her presentation a little? Now that I think about it, KT relies far too much on reason and facts. That never got anybody anywhere. Maybe I should keep my paycheck and meds.

blog comments powered by Disqus