"Sotomayor, Kagan shift Supreme Court debates to the left"

[impik]

There goes another Faux-Progrssives "Obama the sell-out" talkng point.

From todays's LA Times:

The liberal wing is no longer drowned out by Scalia and his fellow conservatives during oral arguments. For most of the last two decades, Supreme Court conservatives led by Justice Antonin Scalia dominated the debates during oral arguments. They greeted advocates for liberal causes with sharp and sometimes caustic questions, putting them on the defensive from the opening minute.

But the tenor of the debate has changed in recent months, now that President Obama's two appointees to the court, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, have joined the fray and reenergized the liberal wing.

Gone are the mismatches where the Scalia wing overshadowed reserved and soft-spoken liberals like now-retired Justices David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens. Instead, the liberals often take the lead and press attorneys defending the states or corporations.

"They're clearly on a roll," said Washington attorney Lisa S. Blatt, who has argued regularly before the high court. "They are engaged and really active. It just feels like a different place."

Read the rest: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-court-arguments-20101226,0,2485878,full.story
----------------------------


From Today's NYT:



Sotomayor Guides Court’s Liberal Wing

At her confirmation hearings last year, Sonia Sotomayor spent a lot of time assuring senators that empathy would play no part in her work on the Supreme Court.

That was a sort of rebuke to President Obama, who had said that empathy was precisely the quality that separated legal technicians like Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. from great justices.

Justice Sotomayor would have none of it.

“We apply law to facts,” she told the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. “We don’t apply feelings to facts.”

We are now three months into Justice Sotomayor’s second term on the court. That is awfully early in a justice’s career to draw any general conclusions. But some things are becoming tolerably clear.

Justice Sotomayor has completely dispelled the fear on the left that her background as a prosecutor would align her with the court’s more conservative members on criminal justice issues. And she has displayed a quality — call it what you will — that is alert to the humanity of the people whose cases make their way to the Supreme Court.


The rest: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/us/politics/28bar.html?hp

[rfranklin]

1. The Fabulous Five needed no precedents in Bush v. Gore...

No facts, no law, and set no precedent. Like thieves in the night, they stole the White House from the voters.

[eleny]

2. K&R, this is great

I so wish they were filmed so we could see the court in action.

[jenmito]

3. Great article. It sure paints a different story than those here who claim Obama put

"Corporatists" on the SC.

[sofa king]

4. If the rumor mill in DC is correct....

The illegal Republican back-channel of communications during the Bush years has been pried loose and, if Scalia was using it even just to accept a fishing invitation from Dick Cheney, I think that's potentially an impeachable offense.

Consider also that the Democrats' tax trap has already sprung and will be used against the GOP for the next two years, the President's coat tails are only going to grow longer in the House, and although only 10 Republican Senators are up for reelection, six of them are vulnerable and both Senators from Maine are on the verge of hopping the fence to our side.

All of which suggests that, in 2013, there may be enough votes in the House and the Senate to send Scalia straight out on his ass. He's smart enough to innocuously resign before anything ever has to come to a vote. All we have to do is turn up the heat by changing the political climate.

And, since Clarence Thomas seems to be unable to do anything without Scalia's oversight, he might have to hit the road, too.

[onenote]

8. that's a lovely fantasy

but its just a fantasy.

There are as many, if not more, vulnerable Democratic Senate seats up in 2012. While its impossible to predict the outcome of the 2012 elections this far out, I expect conditions to favor the reelection of President Obama, but at the same time not to be such that one can expect a major turnaround in the Senate. Certainly not the fourteen seats needed to give the Democrats 67 votes (and that's including a lot of moderate/conservative Democrats). And while its possible that the Democrats could pick up the 25 seats needed to recapture the House, that's a longshot at this point as well and if it happens, impeaching Scalia is unlikely to be a priority, certainly based on whatever it is that you claim has been "pried loose."

But I'll admit its a nice fantasy.

[sofa king]

9. Yes, it's fantasy.

But it's possible. The main thing to note is that the Democrats, not noted of late for their political confidence, have already worked cleverly and hard to lock up the next election with the tax trap and seem to be maneuvering for advantage while waiting for still another shoe to drop. That is uncharacteristic of our usually spineless leadership in Congress.

As you may recall, the Bush Administration left literally thousands of shoes ready to drop, from Jack Abramoff to Xe. This summer would be a convenient time to revisit dozens of those crimes, and the Republican Senators who are inextricably entwined in them. There could be a lot more than 10 Republican seats up for grabs if those tarred with the various scandal brushes of the Bush era have to resign, leading to special elections.

[Clio the Leo]

5. K & R nt

[travelingtypist]

6. I'll take whatever good news I can get.

K&R.

[ClarkUSA]

7. This is CHANGE. Thank you, President Obama!!!

Now all we need is Justice Kennedy to retire/croak and have a Citizens United redux.