What is the right political play in replacing Antonin Scalia?
How should Obama game out his nomination to replace Scalia? We are talking strict political strategy here. Republicans have already said that they are going to refuse to nominate anyone he puts forward. As I see it, there are basically two main plays: nominate someone that could arguably meet with Republican approval, or nominate someone firmly on the left and is clearly a Judicial warrior--a liberal version of Scalia--who has zero chance of meeting Republican approval.
There are pro's and con's to both tactics. If he goes the first route, I would hope he would put forward Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She is qualified for the position, and has experience outside of courtrooms and law. She is acceptable to Democrats, and is well liked among Republican colleagues in the Senate. The fact that she already has personal relationships with Republicans in the Senate, might loosen some of them enough to support her nomination. Even if it fails, being nominated is a great honor, and well--she isn't going anywhere. It is fairly disruptive over all, and it makes it clear that Republicans are just trying to stall in hopes that a Republican wins the White House. This could put us on a path toward a serious constitutional crisis.
The alternative is to go at them hard. Accept that they are going to fight whomever he puts forward tooth and nail in the hopes that they can replace Scalia with someone who shares his worldview. Make it clear that Obama is President and has the right under the Constitution to appoint whomever he feels is qualified. He intends to fight, and to fight hard, to ensure that he makes Scalia's replacement appointment. In this case, he should nominate Pam Karlan a professor at Standard Law School. Her qualifications are undeniable as a constitutional scholar, and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Voting Rights under Obama. She is a liberal dream come true--a true liberal firebrand to replace a conservative firebrand. An openly bisexual and in a long time committed relationship with another woman, her appointment would be revolutionary to the Court. She wrote Justice Harry Blackmun's dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, she's leveled attacks against the Roberts court for constraining the power of Congress, is anti-death penalty and for a reform in prison conditions. She is also a long time leading expert on voting rights, and in the wake of Republican voter suppression, no one is more qualified to sit on the bench.
Here is what the Washington Post had to say on Pam Karlan a few years ago:
Pamela S. Karlan is a champion of gay rights, criminal defendants’ rights and voting rights. She is considered brilliant, outspoken and, in her own words, “sort of snarky.” To liberal supporters, she is an Antonin Scalia for the left.
But Ms. Karlan does not expect President Obama to appoint her to succeed Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring. “Would I like to be on the Supreme Court?” she asked in graduation remarks a couple of weeks ago at Stanford Law School, where she teachessom. “You bet I would. But not enough to have trimmed my sails for half a lifetime.”
While there are clear political advantages to Mr. Obama if the perception is that he has avoided an ideological choice, Ms. Karlan’s absence from his list of finalists has frustrated part of the president’s base, which hungers for a full-throated, unapologetic liberal torchbearer to counter conservatives like Justice Scalia.
My personal view is that Obama should throw down the gauntlet and nominate someone like Pamela Karlan. He is unlikely to get anyone confirmed, and under normal circumstances trying to nominate someone like her would be incredibly difficult. However, the very fact that Republicans have telegraphed that they plan to block him from appointing ANYONE, means that the political ball is in Obama's court. Regardless of how far to the left they are, he can simply paint the Republicans as obstructionists who are leading the country toward a constitutional crisis. So long as the person he nominates is qualified, he can demand an up or down vote. If they give him the up or down vote, or if he wants to try for a more moderate candidate like Senator Amy Klobuchar, there is plenty of time. Additionally, by nominating someone to the far left initially, and having that person soundly rejected, he can make his next nominee look all the more reasonable by comparison as it looks like he is trying to compromise. If he immediately nominates a moderate or even worse--a right leaning centrist--it makes it harder to negotiate down the road. Future nominees will never be able to go toward the left, they can only move more toward the right so long as the Republicans control Congress. This is the advantage of starting out with a far left nominee. He is very likely to lose the battle, but having waged it and come back with a more "reasonable" choice he might get someone further to the left nominated than otherwise would have been possible.
What are the thoughts that you guys are having on what should be Obama's strategy?
= new reply since forum marked as read
