Obama ignoring liberals on all fronts
President Obama shunned liberals when hiring his presidential staff.
Now he’s not even pretending to consider liberals for the Supreme Court:
As Obama considers his choice for a successor, such groups as the Alliance for Justice and the American Constitution Society, which back broad protection of individual rights, likely will wield far less influence than their conservative counterparts did under President George W. Bush.
The leading prospects — U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal appellate judges Merrick Garland and Diane Wood — are relative moderates. Kagan has backed strong presidential authority over national security; rulings by Garland and Wood suggest they would expand rights only gradually.
“The candidates who are truly liberals aren’t really on the table,” said Tom Goldstein, a Washington appellate lawyer whose Scotusblog Web site tracks the court….
Kagan, 49, Obama’s top Supreme Court advocate, has adopted much of the Bush administration’s approach toward national security, putting her at odds with civil libertarians. In a 2001 law review article she argued for stronger presidential control over administrative agencies, a position in line with conservative calls for a “unitary executive.”
Garland, 57, may be the most conservative of the three, particularly on criminal issues.
If Obama wanted to put a left-of-center judge on the Supreme Court, he should be floating many ultra-liberal names and letting the right feel good about confirming a left-of-center nominee. Instead, he’s floating only “centrist” names.
Obama’s either lousy at poker or tricked tens of millions of American voters into believing he’s more liberal than he really is. My money’s strongly on the latter.
Posted by James on Wednesday, April 14, 2010