Massachusetts Former Governor Deval Patrick would be a wise choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
Why ? For the same reason President Eisenhower chose California Governor Earl Warren who turned out to be one of the great Justices of the 20th century. Even though Ike later said it was the worst decision he made when Warren turned out to be a liberal, leading the Court to a unanimous decision in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision overturning segregation in public schools. Ironically, that case was argued by a young Thurgood Marshall who would later become the first African American to serve on the Supremes when President Johnson nominated him in 1965.
When Deval Patrick left public office after honorably serving two terms as our Governor there was widespread speculation in the media and Washington that President Obama would either appoint him Attorney General to replace Eric Holder or nominate him to SCOTUS if a vacancy opened during his Administration.
Governor Patrick is young, liberal, out of office, vetted, and a tested, skilled politician. He has legal experience litigating on behalf of corporate clients and, most importantly, as President Clinton’s Assistant Attorney General heading up the Civil Rights Division.
But now, obstructionist Republican senators, led by Majority Leader McConnell, are threatening to block the President’s nominee from coming to the floor for an up or down vote — BEFORE the President has even submitted his name to the Judiciary Committee for consideration. This is a clear violation of their Constitutional Oath of Office under Article II: ” the President shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate… to appoint Judges of the Supreme Court.”
I have news for the conservative Republican Congress. The President’s term of office does not end until January 20, 2017 at noon. If they try to stall this nomination they will pay a price at the polls in November with a crushing defeat for their presidential nominee along with all Republican candidates down ballot. Article XX, Section 1 says that: ” the terms of Senators and Representatives end on January 3″ which means that there is a 17 day window in which a new Senate can approve an outgoing Presidential nominee. So I say, bring it on.
I believe a Justice Patrick would restore minority voting rights, ensure healthcare to all, protect the progress we have made for women, labor unions and workers, environmental advocates, the LGBTQ community AND overturn the abominable Citizens United decision that allowed dirty money to corrupt clean elections.
Fate has given President Obama a rare opportunity to cement his legacy by securing a liberal majority on the Court for the next generation. He could use it to appoint an eminently qualified candidate—his trusted friend and confidant — Deval Patrick.
YES, HE SHOULD !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Last night the chair of the Wakefield DTC texted me. I told her the same thing.
Unrelated – the republican argument that lame duck presidents do not appoint, Ronald Reagan did just that in 1988 with Justice Kennedy.
This is Obama’s pick and it will change the future of the country for generations.
“Lame duck” refers to holding an office during the period of time between the election of a successor and his/her swearing-in. Obama is an active president.
Part of me suspects that there will be an appointee quietly agreed upon, and will be ratified after the election.
I believe that the GOP now applies it to any Democratic President who has removed his or her hand from book used to swear him/her in.
And I don’t mean to abet the Republicans in changing the language to suit their short-term political needs. If they’re using the wrong word(s) on purpose, I will call them on it. It’s not “partial-birth abortion”, it’s not “a death tax”, and Obama is not a lame duck. I’m not doing the GOP’s job forthem.
n/t
I will buy Fred 10 lobster dinners if Obama appoints Patrick and gets a confirmation.
The possibility of appointing a politician with a long (and mixed) record to the open seat won’t happen. The Republicans would lose their minds, refuse a vote, and they wouldn’t lose public support because there would no NO argument from the Democrats that Obama wasn’t trying to put an overtly partisan choice on the court. I think this would be one of the worst possible decisions Obama could make – the actual worst decision would be to nominate himself.
This is the type of move that could make an already atrocious political situation much worse.
When Governor Patrick left public office after honorably serving two terms as our Governor there was nationwide speculation in the media and Washington that President Obama would either nominate him as Attorney General to replace Eric Holder OR nominate him to the Supreme Court if a vacancy occurred during his Administration.
As for partisanship ? Republican presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower made the deal with his rival, Governor Earl Warren, as payback for his support during the 1952 convention. If that wasn’t partisanship I don’t know what is. But history proves it was the best appointment he made. For the country, that is.
Finally, I think it would be one of President Obama’s most shrewd nominations. It would force Senate Republicans to either shit or get off the pot. Either you believe in the Constitution or you don’t. Article II clearly authorizes the President to : ” nominate with the advise and consent of the Senate…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
News Flash to Republicans ! President Obama’s term of office doesn’t end until January 20, 2017 at noon.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
The Republicans will not stand for a purely political pick for the court, and they will easily win the battle of public perception if Obama went that route – also, they’d only need to stall for about 6 months before everything is all consumed by the general election.
Yes, there was speculation for AG and SCOTUS, but it was pretty weak speculation, especially for SCOTUS. For cabinet picks, the senate gives a lot more leeway to let a president pick his or her team – although the Republicans have shown less inclination to do that then Democrats have.
The Warren pick was very much a political pick, but it was a different era and he was exactly the kind of moderate that everyone was ok with. Conservatives hate what the Warren court ultimately did and they won’t risk a repeat.
Yeah, I think we can safely say from the recent record that they really don’t give a shit. They’ve done nothing for so long and have not suffered much electorally.
If Obama has the skills to get a pick like Patrick through, we as progressives should be absolutely furious with him. It would mean that he’s been holding back on us for years and could have gotten a lot more done. I don’t think that’s the case and he’s largely done the best he can given the absurd level of Republican obstruction.
The perfect candidate for this seat is one on which current Senators would have to reverse their previous confirmation votes in the face of very little additional evidence revealing the sitting judge to be a strong liberal.
There are far more progressive and confirmable choices than our ex-Governor, it would make the Susan Rice confirmation look like re-nominating Bob Gates. Sri Srivasan was confirmed by a 97-0 vote less than two years ago for the federal bench, he would be pretty hard to assail by the Republicans seeing they all voted for them then.
He also would get many endorsement from prominent conservative jurists who worked with him like he did for his current seat, but we know that on at least four hot button issues he’s a liberal (choice, gay rights, the environment and affirmative action). Enough to move the court leftward from Scalia without triggering an apocalyptic showdown. That’s a nominee the likes of Kirk, Toomey, Ayotte, and Portman would have to defy their majority leader to vote for or risk losing their seats.
… however sound it might be in more normal circumstances.
A vicious confirmation fight now, where the Republicans are up against the wall of either a surely Dem POTUS, or a Trump POTUS, each with a Dem Senate in 2017, is pressure that the GOP hasn’t felt since their ill-advised shutdown antics. It might, in fact, be unavoidable. We can have the fight now or we can have it later.
Hillary Clinton in the White House with a Dem Senate is surely their nightmare scenario. She could appoint her husband, or even the late Socks the cat, and they’d be helpless before it.
The GOP’s best scenario is keeping the Senate with a Cruz or Rubio presidency, but that’s a tall order. An R POTUS with a D Senate is just the confirmation fight they’re putting off here. They will have NO control over a Trump Presidency (nobody will, not even Trump himself)
Apply maximum pressure NOW — Don’t go for max confirmability– invite the fight and force them to (as they are adept at) over-react. Best case we get all we want, including an excellent Justice. Worst case, we delay the fight for another time with possibly even better terrain upon which to fight….
especially since the new Senators are sworn in on January 3 and the new President is sworn in on January 20 leaving 17 days interim under the 20th Amendment.
Meaning the incoming Senate could confirm the outgoing President’s nominee.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
with an undistinguished record as an attorney? Why?
Patrick piloted much of the apparatus used to elect Obama, from message to field. Now he gets his repayment.
At least, that’s how it will be presented, and it will sound awfully convincing.
…candidate for Gov in 2006 used the good graces of Sen. Obama to raise money and generate support. Who owes who?
and he does not share your opinion of the Governor.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
….you don’t always use the “reply” function as opposed to “post a comment”?