Tweet
The theocratic right is busily defining Diane Wood as a radical extremist hell-bent on aborting every child in America, because they actually have rulings where she has ruled in abortion cases.
If President Obama nominates U.S. Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, social conservatives say they intend to make her rulings on abortion rights the primary point of contention.
“That’s her Achilles’ heel,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, which opposes Wood’s rulings on abortion. “It tells you that she’s probably not going to be selected, because Obama doesn’t have the stomach for this to be about an abortion debate.”
I don’t think Levey’s entirely wrong about that, but let’s look at what he’s really talking about. Wood, who counts among her supporters and friends right-wing judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner, has over her career issued opinions opposing a ban on late-term abortions, opposing a waiting period for women who wanted abortions and favoring laws that would help stop violence at abortion clinics. Far from putting her outside the judicial mainstream, this puts her firmly within it – and almost identical to the positions Justice John Paul Stevens has taken on the federal bench. The final case did get overturned by the high court, but turned on applications of RICO laws and not the legality or illegality of violence at abortion clincs per se.
The far right has pretty expertly defined the terms of the debate on the Supreme Court. Judges who rule with the actual settled law in abortion cases are outside the mainstream, radical, crazy. Judges who rule to overturn the settled law are wise and judicious. None of this has changed. Diane Wood is “unacceptable” only because she had the misfortune to rule on abortion cases, unlike her rivals for the appointment who have not. Her rulings actually show the kind of judge she would be, and they remark favorably on her, but in this day and age, having a record is about the worst way to get on the Supreme Court. It’s a shame, because she’s clearly the most qualified potential nominee currently under discussion.
24 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Elections have consequences. Does the right-wing forced birth industry really think a Democratic president will appoint an anti-choice justice?
You’re probably right, so don’t bet big money on her nomination. Is Leah Ward Sears the best liberal choice who could win confirmation?
It sure does seem like the right would oppose most anyone to the left of Attila the Hun.
Let’s see, in HCR, we went from
Single Payer -> Public Option -> National Exchange -> State Exchanges -> Kiss Benedict’s Ring
so for SCOTUS, we’re probably looking at
Pam Karlan -> Diane Wood -> Elena Kagan -> Cass Sunstein -> Ken Starr.
Nah….Ken Starr’s too liberal./s Hell for these people, considering it’s Obama doing the nominating, Alito would be accused of being a liberal, activist, socialist, abortionist.
I was thinking something along those lines but you said it perfectly.
No but what they really want is to whip up a frenzy among the wingnuts.
It tells you that she’s probably not going to be selected, because Obama doesn’t have the stomach for this to be about an abortion debate.
Sadly, yes.
A Democratic president wouldn’t, but Obama will.
Does the right-wing forced birth industry really think a Democratic president will appoint an anti-choice justice?
Sadly, yes.
And they’re probably right.
Can someone explain to me why it is relevant, how it is that the looney right is framing Dianne Wood?
The Democrats have a majority in the Senate.
If Obama wants Justice Wood, he can have Justice Wood.
Is this another one of these circumstances where the Constitution is actually wrong, as written, and the US government requires a 60-vote majority in the Senate for confirmation of a new justice?
(Obama eagerly caved in on reproductive freedom during “health care reform” so presumably he will do so in the SCOTUS nominee as well- )
They do think that! You should know that by now since these same turkeys think you shouldn’t be married.
OT – Teddy have you heard of this group – Pink Pistols – a group that promotes the armament of the gay community. Link
Koh is the best choice. Koh = Single payer Health Care. He gets knocked out before the first round.
So, now, this is getting really scary to me that people who are supposedly in a minority get to holler and carry guns and intimidate to their heart’s content and get their way like spoiled children.
We’re winding up a orthodox neo-religio, fascist state because a few people are being mislead into hatred of anyone who actually thinks and believes differently is shouted down…largely due to corporate media coverage.I guess we’re all supposed to think alike now. (in the Land of the Free)
It’s just so…………13th century. We’re going back to the Dark Ages, my friends…. Maybe even the stake with these zealots
I’m terribly frightened Obama will appoint Kagan and the Repukes will still oppose.
The frenzy will be the same no matter who is nominated. Just like the frenzy would have been the same if single payer had been put forward.
Hey I say he goes with Elizabeth Warren. She come from REAL people and would stand up for the People of this Nation and Not corps….. Now wouldn’t that piss off the Rightfuckwards!!
Isn’t Kagen pro choice? Why is she acceptable to the Right and not Woods? The corporate, Executive power, inexperienced tool Elena Kagen gets a thumbs up, but a real judge with a comparable record to Stevens gets trashed. I have full confidence Obama will throw her under the bus, anyway. It’s pretty apparent that he wants Kagen.
Republicans are so full of shit. Bush had it all six years ago including a Conservative SCOTUS, and they didn’t do squat about overturning Roe.
But leave it to Obama who started chipping away at it with his POS HCR. Considering he’s the best president Republicans could hope for, he’ll probably get the job done; with Democrats applauding.
You answered your own question (assuming it was not rhetorical)
The Democrats and Republicans would never allow an overt proponent of single payer health care onto the court.
Elena Kagan is a fascist fantasy come true. And because most people who staunchly oppose reproductive rights also tend to be fascist in their thinking, most of them are willing to overlook the fact that Kagan is pro-choice.
So… I’m guessing you forgot to close a snark tag in your title?
If President Obama nominates Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and she is accepted, we will have a “right” leaning Supreme Court for decades. Could any real “progressive” vote for President Obama in 2012 after such a decision?
He should nominate Woods. Let the Senate have at her. When they vote her down, nominate Koh. Rinse, repeat (this time with Elizabeth Warren).
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: this is the President who thinks single payer is the way to go. Thought. Makes the public option an issue. Non-. Okaaaaaaaaaaaay.