It is official! President Obama’s search for a successor to Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his retirement Friday, picks up where Obama left off last year.
Who will it be? Who gets the nod? Who? Who? Who? It is time to change the complexion of the Court…and I am NOT talking about skin color….
USA Today is reporting on the leaders in this race for the seat:
Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor to fill the vacancy created when Justice David Souter retired. Three other candidates he interviewed for that vacancy remain possibilities: U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Chicago-based U.S. Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood.Among other legal figures likely in the mix, based on their credentials and backgrounds, are Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland, Attorney General Eric Holder and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who worked as an assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Clinton administration.
All would most likely be good selection, but why do we need another judge? Why not let someone who actually interprets the Constitution on a regular basis have a go?
My vote (for what it is worth) would be Jonathan Turley…..why?
He is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He lives in D.C. with his wife Leslie. He served as the consultant to the Florida House of Representatives on constitutional issues and also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He was also ranked among the nation’s top 500 lawyers in 2008. (He was previously ranked in the top ten military lawyers as well as one of the forty top lawyers under the age of forty).
His articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with over 500 articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is on the Board of Contributors of USA Today. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News and CBS News to cover stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections. Professor Turley is often a guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday.
(Thanx to wiki for the bio on Turley)
I think he would be the perfect addition to the Court because he is intelligent and has experience in constitutional law…that would be a first for the Court….a person who actually works with constitutional law and understands it well enough to teach it to our future leaders……plus he is well known to Congress for his numerous times testifying and he is known by academia as a well versed teacher and interpreter of the Constitution……
Obama could do a lot worse, but he could do NO better than nominating Jonathan Turley to SCOTUS…..it is time to nominate for experience and not for connections…..
Er… have you lost your mind? Connections are everything to politicians, lawyers and lawmakers alike.
Come on Lobotero! Think about it! When did anything in or to do with government depend on experience and ability? Don’t be so silly! That would mean people doing useful work that they are paid to do! What next? You’ll be demanding honesty or even integrity! Ye gods, man!!!!
😆
I know…I know….but since the Court ius the referee in the Federal system….why not pick someone with brains? I am delisional….but I believe that ALL the judges now are activist judges…none are true referees…just look at the recent ruling that allows corporations to donate….that is NOT what the court is there for….
You know that and I know that and it makes perfect sense – but so few others see it – why would they care if a few “non-entities” complain – no one else will listen….
It’s a plan. I told you, the system was flawed from the start and is now truly broken – it cannot be mended, only dumped and replaced and THAT, my friend, will be next to impossible, since the elite hold all the cards – education, advertising, welfare, healthcare, debt and all the rest of the things ordinary people are swayed by or are afraid to lose or have withheld.
We need to get the plan out there…give others a shot at understanding….I try but few listen….
I know. I have little hope, but you never know and it’s not in my nature to just shut up about something like this. 🙁
I hear ya….I also , as you know, an opinionated SOB and do not know when to keep my mouth shut….it is a curse!