White House Expects Battle Over Supreme Court Nominee

Advisers say Obama's pick will draw controversy no matter who he chooses

April 29, 2010 RSS Feed Print

Official Washington is bracing for another epic battle over President Obama's next nomination to the Supreme Court, which should come in the next few weeks. The trigger was Justice John Paul Stevens's recent announcement that he is retiring, opening up a "liberal" seat on the court and prompting all sides to begin preparations for what will surely be trench warfare.

Obama met last week with key senators to smooth the way, and he expressed confidence that "we can come up with a nominee who will gain the confidence of the Senate and the confidence of the country, and the confidence of individuals who look to the court to provide even-handed justice to all Americans." But based on recent history, the president was being too optimistic. Even his aides predict rough times ahead. That's because the court plays such a central role in our national life that just about every major interest group wants to shape the panel according to its own values. Various organizations use a nomination fight to raise money, often by scaring their supporters into thinking that if the outcome goes against them, Armageddon will be just around the corner.

Obama's front-runners appear to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. All three worked in President Bill Clinton's administration and are considered stellar legal minds.

But the signs of struggle are already emerging. Kagan, considered by many in Washington as Obama's most likely choice, has prompted attacks from the right. One concern among conservatives is an E-mail she sent to students and faculty members in October 2003, shortly after she became dean of Harvard Law School. She complained that military recruiters were allowed on campus even though they endorsed practices that she said violated the university's anti-discrimination policy. She was referring to the military's prohibition of openly gay people from serving in the armed forces. "This action causes me deep distress," Kagan wrote. "I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy," which she called "a moral injustice of the first order." Conservatives are ready to make this a major issue in her confirmation hearings, though it is expected to be only a small part of their attack if Kagan is Obama's choice. CBS published a blog entry in which a writer said that Kagan is a lesbian, which she and the White House deny. CBS initially added a note to the post with the White House's objections and later removed the entry from their site. The incident illustrates how personal the whole nomination business has become, and all over the capital, conservatives are researching Kagan's record as well as those of other possible nominees looking for strike points. "There's going to be a food fight," says Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. "The question is whether there will be a filibuster." If so, the Democrats, who hold a 59 to 41 majority, will need at least one Republican vote to move the nomination forward.

"There's no 'Kumbaya' going on—it's gotten harsh and bitter," says historian Doug Brinkley. He traces the acrimony to President Nixon's controversial and unsuccessful high court nominations of Clement Haynsworth and Harrold Carswell in 1969 and 1970, respectively, and later, the defeat of Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork in 1987, and the divisive but successful nomination of Clarence Thomas by George H.W. Bush in 1991. "Now it's almost par for the course," Brinkley says. The pattern is for opponents to dredge up everything they can to harm a nominee, including books checked out of a library and movies rented from a video store. "We live in glass houses," he says, and the result too often is a media circus.

Every recent nominee has endured some form of the assault strategy, including Sonia Sotomayor, who was confirmed last year, and both John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who were nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed a few years ago.

"Regrettably, we are in a time where regardless of who is picked, there is a cottage industry around these nominations and around making these nominations political fights," says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. "We're not naive enough to think that somehow there's a person out there that will satisfy each and every member of that class and of the U.S. Senate." Unfortunately, experts say he's right, and it will likely be a long, hot summer for the nominee.

Tags:
Barack Obama,
Supreme Court,
The Presidency

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

My status as a heavily-taxed landlord & homeowner all these years..that's what drives my comments. As a Depression Kid, I HATE WASTE. I loathe the costly welfare system that exists because most churches ban abortions. I researched cost of USA abortions & they are so CHEAP compared to the half-million dollars many unwed poor moms get for themselves and one kid to age l8. Also, most folks feel ashamed to be on welfare. Making it easy for them to abort unaffordable children, or for health reasons, is doing a great public good. I argue there's only one reason why ProLife exists, & that is to create, protect & increase church income. Åborted conceptions do not live to become believers who tithe & pay fees, etc. Churches ban suicide because corpses don't pay costs of worship. Let us expect the new Court Justice to be fiscally wise, with a vested interest in keeping her own taxes lower by making access to abortion legal and easily affordable, with tax subsidy where needed. Some counties don't have even one abortionist and we see how fanatics kill abortionists, not even realizing why their church bans abortion--to have access to tithes and fees.

aura dawn veirs of CA 6:34PM May 10, 2010

In 1973, the Court, in Roe v Wade, made the civil government stop enforcing church law that bans abortion. The ruling based itself on "the right to privacy of affected couples." But the vital lesson is that Roe guarantees the constitutional right of American women to be MOBILE, to be able to MOVE AROUND, to TRAVEL, to GO where we want to be, including visits to abortionists. Roe can't be repealed if the argument is to preserve MOBILITy. Obama is a ProChoice president, wisely realizing that time will prove he's right when taxes go down after fewer unwed poor moms show up for public subsidy of their religious decision not to abort. Authentic fiscally conservative taxpayers like me know we pay more for the costly welfare system than we could if tax-funded abortions "nipped in the bud" the problem of conceptions caused by Absentee Dads who never intend to burden themselves with the cost and work of rearing children. Abortion is cheap. To ten weeks, it costs $567. To l6 weeks, it costs $735. To the end, it still costs only $1370. That's conservative money management. If you prefer that instead of the $500,000 it costs to tax subsidize one poor unwed mom and one child to age 18, then you're a real conservative. .

aura dawn veirs of CA 6:16PM May 10, 2010

AND, he will get his nominee through. The 41 vote Republican bloc will fracture by one or more. The notion that Republicans are going to win big in November on obstructionism is a fictional novel written only by the Republicans themselves. If they block the nominee and Obama does not budge, THEN you have the spectacle of Republicans wishing to see the Court go into fall session with only eight---giving ridiculous advantage to conservatives. It won't fly with voters and even the GOP hacks know it.

Muser of NM 11:11PM April 30, 2010

Photo Galleries

Before and After the Joplin Tornado

A look at Joplin one year after the deadly tornado.

advertisement

Latest Video