Anita Hill vs Virginia Thomas "Catfight": No Apology More Vengeance

Anita Hill: No Apology Coming For Thomas Testimony


Anita Hill, whose accusations of sexual harassment almost derailed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' high court nomination, has no plans to apologize for the charges she made nearly two decades ago.

The response from Hill, now a law professor at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, comes following a voice-mail message left for her by Thomas' wife, Virginia, over the weekend, requesting an apology.

Charles Radin, the Brandeis director of news and communications, said Hill received the voice mail and turned it over to the campus Department of Public Safety, which then turned it over to the FBI.

Special Agent Jason Pack, an FBI spokesman in Washington, declined to comment late Tuesday.

"I certainly thought the call was inappropriate," Hill said in a statement to CNN issued by Brandeis. "I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony."

In a statement to CNN, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas said: "I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get passed what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended."

According to a source at Brandeis, who spoke on condition of not being identified, the message left over the weekend said:

"Good morning, Anita Hill, it's Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology some time and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day."

Virginia Thomas is a conservative activist who founded the organization Liberty Central.

Hill declined comment to CNN affiliate WCVB outside her Waltham home on Wednesday, saying, "Please, let me go teach my class."

Then-President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas -- a then-43-year-old conservative from Pinpoint, Georgia -- to the Supreme Court in 1991.

The nomination was "instantly controversial," according to an outline of the incident posted on the website for the Center for History and New Media, part of a history class syllabus.

African-American organizations, including the NAACP and the Urban League, opposed it, fearing that Thomas' conservative stance on issues such as affirmative action would reverse gains his predecessor, Justice Thurgood Marshall, had helped achieve, the outline said.

However, the nomination proceeded to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the first few days of his confirmation hearings were uneventful, according to the historical account. "When asked about his stance on legal abortion, [Clarence] Thomas claimed that he had not formulated an opinion and the issue was dropped."

The nomination went before the full Senate, but a media frenzy developed when Hill -- then a law professor at the University of Oklahoma -- came forward and alleged that Thomas had sexually harassed her years earlier, when he was head of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and she worked for him, the outline said. The Senate Judiciary Committee launched an investigation.

Hill actually had made the allegations during interviews with the FBI, but they were leaked to the press just before the final Senate vote on Clarence Thomas, according to the Museum of Broadcast Communications' website. The Senate delayed the vote in order to hear more about Hill's allegations.

In three days of televised hearings that transfixed Americans, Hill testified that Thomas repeatedly requested dates with her and engaged in inappropriate discussions including references to pornographic material.

In his testimony, Clarence Thomas denied the allegations and called the hearings "a national disgrace ... a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves," according to the museum.

Two days later, Clarence Thomas was confirmed on a 52-48 vote.

"Although the hearings themselves had no legal significance, to many observers they symbolized a public referendum on sexual harassment and other gender inequities in late twentieth-century America," according to the broadcast museum. The incident has been credited with increasing public awareness regarding gender discrimination and motivating female voters in the 1992 elections, which saw a record 29 women elected to Congress.

"Many feminist groups refer to Anita Hill as the mother of a new wave of awareness of gender discrimination, particularly given the attacks on her credibility that she withstood from the white male senators," the museum said.

Harriett Woods, then-president of the National Women's Political Caucus, was quoted by the museum as saying, "Anita Hill focused attention on the fact that there were no women in that Senate panel making decisions about people's lives."


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Kagan Pledges Fairness, Modesty & Neutrality If Confirmed

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Kagan Pledges Open Mind, Impartiality If Confirmed To U.S. Supreme Court


U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that justices on the nation's highest court should be even-handed and impartial in order to promise "nothing less than a fair shake for every American."

In her opening statement to her confirmation hearing, Kagan sought to address Republican concerns that her background as an academic and policy specialist in the Clinton administration would bring a liberal bias in her court rulings.

The role of the Supreme Court is "to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint," Kagan said.

"I will make no pledges this week other than this one -- that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons," she said after describing her experiences as a Supreme Court clerk, law school professor and U.S. solicitor general. "I will listen hard, to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues. I will work hard. And I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle, and in accordance with law."

If confirmed by the 19-member committee and then the full Senate, Kagan would be the 112th Supreme Court justice and the fourth woman to sit on the nation's highest court.

While her confirmation is considered likely, Republican senators on the panel questioned Monday whether Kagan can be an impartial justice, displaying a partisan divide over President Barack Obama's second Supreme Court nomination since he took office in January 2009. The Senate confirmed Obama's first candidate, Sonia Sotomayor, last year.

The committee's seven Republicans used their opening statements to challenge Kagan's judicial experience and her ability to put aside personal politics, and the 12 Democratic members praised Kagan's qualifications and welcomed her possible presence on a court they criticized for what they called conservative activism.

Kagan sat impassively in the packed room, sometimes taking a sip of water, as the senators outlined the questioning she will face in coming days.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said Kagan would be an independent Supreme Court justice, and that he advised her to be open in expressing her judicial philosophy at her confirmation hearing.

Citing her record as the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman solicitor general of the United States, Leahy said America is "a better country for the fact that the path of excellence Elena Kagan has taken in her career is one now open to both men and women."

However, the ranking Republican on the panel, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said Kagan lacks judicial experience and has a record of supporting liberal political causes.

"While academia certainly has value, there is no substitute, I think, for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases," Sessions said.

Other Republicans said Kagan's experience as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall indicated she would seek to push society toward desired ideological or political ends, rather than apply existing law.

"Will the Constitution control her, or will she try to control the Constitution?" asked Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Does she believe that judges may control the Constitution by changing its meaning?"

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California accused Republicans of casting a "drift net" for any disqualifying fact in Kagan's record, saying the GOP effort failed.

"I believe you are eminently confirmable," Feinstein said, turning the tables on Republican concerns about Kagan's lack of judicial experience by saying: "Frankly, I find this refreshing."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Other Democrats harshly criticized the current Supreme Court for what they characterized as rulings based on conservative activism. They cited the Citizens United ruling in January, in which the high court voted 5-4 to give big businesses, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, which they said threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, called the Supreme Court's shift to the right under Chief Justice John Roberts "palpable."

"In decision after decision, this court bends the law to suit" a conservative political ideology, Schumer said, calling Kagan "a terrific antidote to the lack of practical real-world understanding of the court."

However, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said Kagan's record is full of "warning signs" that she may be what he called a "results-oriented" justice -- which is conservative code language for liberal activism.

Citing her record as clerk for Marshall, Kyl said many of her memos then "appeared to be based largely on her own liberal political views."

"This kind of naked political judgment appears frequently throughout Kagan's work as a Supreme Court clerk," Kyl said.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois responded that America is a better nation due to Marshall's personal empathy in ruling on influential civil rights cases.

"Our Supreme Court is badly in need of a person of your skill and knowledge and background," Durbin said.


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post

Obama Officially Selects Elena Kagan SCOTUS Nominee, Pushback Expected

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama Officially Picks Elena Kagan For U.S. Supreme Court Nominee


President Barack Obama on Monday nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, declaring she would demonstrate the same independence, integrity and passion for the law exhibited by retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

"Elena is widely regarded as one of the nation's foremost legal minds," said Obama. "She's a trail-blazing leader."

The president also praised Kagan's temperament and her practice of "understanding before disagreeing."

Kagan called the Supreme Court an "extraordinary institution," one that advances "the tenets of our Constitution." She called her nomination "the honor of a lifetime."

Her selection, reported late Sunday by NBC News, positions the court to have three female justices for the first time in its history.

Kagan, 50, is known as sharp and politically savvy and has enjoyed a blazing legal career. She was the first female dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman to serve as the top Supreme Court lawyer for any administration.

Kagan would be the youngest justice on the court, which would give her the opportunity to extend Obama's legacy for a generation. She would also bring some fresh blood to the court's liberal wing in replacing the 90-year-old Stevens.

Democrats went 15 years without a Supreme Court appointment until Obama chose federal appellate judge Sonia Sotomayor last year to succeed retiring Justice David Souter.

When George W. Bush was in the White House, there was a conservative shift in the court's composition with the addition of Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate whose vote often made the difference in ideologically charged cases.

Kagan must win Senate confirmation, and she is expected to in the Democrat-led chamber. However, Republicans are likely to grill Kagan over her experience, her thin record of legal writings and her objections to the military's policy about gays.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Supreme Court confirmation hearings are often politically charged events, and it could be especially heated coming just months before November congressional elections.

To stop her from becoming the nation's 112th justice, Democrats would have to abandon Obama and his second high court pick or almost all of the GOP senators would have to agree to filibuster the nomination — more than a year after seven of them voted for Kagan to become the solicitor general.

It is unlikely that Republicans will try to block her, said Manuel Miranda, chairman of the conservative Third Branch Conference.

A source close to the selection process said a central element in Obama's choice was Kagan's reputation for bringing together people of competing views and earning their respect.

Aides involved in the selection process tell NBC News that the president called Kagan at 8 p.m. ET on Sunday to tell her that she had been selected as the nominee.

Kagan came to the fore as a candidate who had worked closely with all three branches of government, a legal mind with both a sense of modesty and sense of humor. The source spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss factors that led to Kagan's impending nomination.

Kagan has clerked for Thurgood Marshall, worked for Bill Clinton and earned a stellar reputation as a student, teacher and manager of the elite academic world. Her standing has risen in Obama's eyes as his government's lawyer before the high court over the last year.

She is known for having won over liberal and conservative faculty at the difficult-to-unite Harvard Law School, where she served as dean for nearly six years.

As solicitor general, Kagan represents the U.S. government and defends acts of Congress before the Supreme Court and decides when to appeal lower court rulings.

Despite her background in law, Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. The last two were William H. Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell Jr., both of whom joined the court in 1972.

All of the three other finalists she beat out for the job are federal appeals court judges, and all nine of the current justices served on the federal bench before being elevated.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The White House is expected to frame Kagan's lack of service as a judge in upbeat terms, underscoring that there are many qualified routes to the top of the judiciary.

Supreme Court justices wield enormous power over the daily life of Americans. Any one of them can cast the deciding vote on matters of life and death, individual freedoms and government power. Presidents serve four-year terms; justices have tenure for life.

If Kagan is confirmed, it would be the first time that the nine-member Supreme Court would have three women on the bench. She would be just the fourth woman to serve on the court, following current Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor and retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

She would be the third Jewish justice along with six Catholics. With Stevens' retirement, the court will have no Protestants, the most prevalent denomination in the U.S.

Kagan, who is unmarried, was born in New York City. She holds a bachelor's degree from Princeton, a master's degree from Oxford and a law degree from Harvard.

Kagan and Obama both taught at the University of Chicago Law School in the early 1990s.


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Whitehouse.gov

Elena Kagan Questioned By Lindsey Graham, She's Not Gay

White House Complains About CBS News Blog Post Which Claims Elena Kagan Is Gay


The Obama White House ripped CBS News on Thursday for publishing an online column by a Blogger who made assertions about the sexual orientation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court.

Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, wrote that "President Obama would "please" much of his base by picking the "first openly Gay Justice".

An Obama administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a Lesbian.

CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010."

She said the network was giving a platform to a Blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."

The network deleted the posting Thursday night after Domenech said he was merely repeating a rumor.

The flare-up underscores how quickly the battle over a Supreme Court nominee -- or even a potential nominee -- can turn searingly personal. Most major news organizations have policies against "outing" gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties.

An Obama White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said he complained to CBS because the column "made false charges."

Domenech later added an update to the post: "I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted -- odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles."

CBS News executives at first defended the column, noting that it appeared in an opinion section that contains contributions from blogs and publications on the left and right.

Dan Farber, Editor-in-Chief of CBSNews.com, said that Domenech's column "just got through our filters" and that if his staff had seen "a controversial statement like that, we'd want to get more evidence of its accuracy" before publishing it. "But once it is out there," Farber said, "the better approach is just to address it head-on rather than trying to sweep it under the rug."

He changed his mind about yanking the column after receiving an e-mail from Domenech, which the blogger also sent to The Washington Post. Farber said in a statement that "after looking at the facts we determined that it was nothing but pure and irresponsible speculation on the Blogger's part."

"I offer my sincere apologies to Ms. Kagan if she is offended at all by my repetition of a Harvard rumor in a speculative blog post," Domenech said. CBS initially added that statement to an editor's note that also reported the White House denial.

In his e-mail, Domenech said that the naming of an openly gay justice would show "how far we've come as a society" and that this "will be an issue of political discussion, whether we like it or not."

Domenech is editor of a year-old Web site called the New Ledger, from which the CBS column was reprinted.

He is also Editor of the City, a religion-oriented publication of Houston Baptist University.

The Post's Web site briefly hired Domenech as a Conservative Blogger in 2006.

He resigned three days after his debut after a flurry of plagiarism allegations that were trumpeted by liberal Web sites. The sites found signs of plagiarism in a movie review he wrote for National Review Online and, earlier, in his writing for the College of William & Mary's student newspaper.

Domenech maintained that he did not knowingly use other people's writing without attribution but said the "firestorm" had "reached the point where there's nothing I can really do to defend myself."

Rumors invariably raise a difficult Journalistic choice: whether to report on them and give them credence, or withhold them and fail to acknowledge what insiders are discussing.

Marc Ambinder, a Blogger for The Atlantic, wrote Monday about what he called "a baffling whisper campaign" about Kagan "among both Gay rights activists and social Conservatives. . . .

"So pervasive are these rumors that two senior administration officials I spoke with this weekend acknowledged hearing about them and did not know whether they were true. . . .

Why is she the subject of these rumors? Who's behind them?"


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, C-Span, Huffington Post, New Ledger, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Deval Patrick On Obama's SCOTUS Nominee Short List

Obama’s Top Ten U.S. Supreme Court Picks


Here's the List folks:


1.) Elena Kagan (49), Solicitor General of the United States. The likeliest candidate, and it was somewhat of a surprise she didn’t get picked last time. Pluses: would please much of Obama’s base, follows diversity politics of Sotomayor with first openly gay justice (so would Karlan and Sullivan). [Update: While Karlan and Sullivan are open about it, I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted -- odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles.] [Update: see my apology to Ms. Kagan at Huffington Post] Minuses: Seen as too moderate by some on the left; people like Arianna Huffington and Glenn Greenwald strongly dislike her because of her positions on executive power and anti-terror activities. Could be seen as a thumb in the eye of the civil liberties folks.


2.) Diane Wood (59) of 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The second most likely candidate, at least according to conventional wisdom. Pluses: whip smart, beloved by liberals, would be a strong force on the court. Minuses: Will turn 60 before she would be seated; more importantly, this would be a court fight purely about abortion, and the likeliest to spark furious response from the right.


3.) Cass Sunstein (55) of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Pluses: massive liberal brain, unquestioned for his scholarly ability. Minuses: has some personal issues, the break with Martha Nussbaum was a messy one, and has a long paper trail on everything under the sun. Is disliked by the civil liberties left, but Sunstein’s opinions are for the most part consistent with what Obama’s done as president (if not what he actually promised while running). Bonus Plus/Minus: as I was one of very few conservative bloggers to support Sotomayor’s nomination as the best candidate of a bad lot, I would similarly find Sunstein in that position this year, as does Pejman Yousefzadeh.


4.) Pam Karlan (51) of Stanford. Pluses: Karlan is frequently called a liberal dreamboat candidate, and deservedly so thanks to her acidic approach. This would make up for any disatisfaction with Sotomayor for the left. Minuses: Video like this abounds thanks to Karlan’s constant media appearances, and she didn’t make his list before for a reason.


5.) Merrick Garland (58) of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Safe choice, loved by the Washington insiders, boring liberal with a moderate temperament. Pluses: would probably get the most votes and the least opposition, and get approved well before November. Minuses: really doesn’t get the White House anything — loved by all the Ivy League insiders who already adore Obama.


6.) Harold Koh (55) of the State Department. Pluses: Koh would be a brilliant, kamikaze pick, designed to make the civil libertarians do flips, and with the kind of inspirational family story Obama liked so much in Sotomayor. Minuses: After Wood, maybe the second most divisive candidate. Harold Koh’s background is, as Ted Bromund has written, that of a profoundly dedicated transnationalist.


7.) Kathleen Sullivan (55) of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. Pluses: Former mentor Laurence Tribe called her “the most extraordinary student I had ever had.” Strong liberal who’s passed up other opportunities for a shot at the federal bench. Minuses: Failed her first try at the bar exam. And Dahlia Lithwick would have a lot of fun writing about her.


8.) Jennifer Granholm (51) of Michigan. Only included because she’s always mentioned, including again by the WaPo here. Pluses: parachutes a young former rising star into a court where she will toe the political line. Minuses: brings the focus on how much she’s effed up Michigan, seems like pure political silliness to discuss her as a replacement for a liberal institution like Stevens.


9.) Gov. Deval Patrick (53) of Massachusetts. Similar calculus to Granholm, and one that would surely have an advocate in David Axelrod within the White House. Pluses: parachutes a young former rising star into a court where he will toe the political line (also, maybe you’ll goad a Conservative into calling him an Affirmative Action pick).


which brings us to…drumroll…

10.) Hillary Clinton (62) of the U.S. State Department. Now that you’ve stopped laughing, consider: here’s one way of getting rid of what remains a dicey political problem, rewarding a crew of still-bitter supporters, ensuring easy Senate passage (talk about a nominee as vetted as it gets) while firmly reasserting control over what is steadily becoming your administration’s rogue department at Foggy Bottom. Pluses: She’s Hillary Clinton.

Minuses: She’s Hillary Clinton.








Deval Patrick Once Again Listed As Possible 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Nominee


A rumor that has circulated since at least 2007 has returned for a comeback tour.

With the impending retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, some are including Gov. Deval Patrick on the White House List of potential replacements.

When Supreme Court Justice David Souter retired in 2009, Patrick's name appeared on several lists of possible replacements.

This time around, Patrick may have more of an edge, as CNN.com notes:

Other possible contenders could be Cass Sunstein, 55, an old law school associate of Obama's and head of a key White House agency, and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, 53, a longtime friend of the president's. Some insiders reportedly favor Patrick, but he's seeking re-election this fall to governorship.

Other opinions on the possibility of a Patrick nomination from around the web:

* In Slate.com, Emily Bazelon and Dahlia Lithwick write that, as a nominee, Patrick could provoke a confirmation battle.

Some advisers in the White House may look to Deval Patrick or Harold Koh, both of whom are lawyers of distinction and would be attractive from a diversity perspective. But frankly, in this season of Tea Party madness, these nominees could easily get roughed up early and rejected or blocked.

* Ezra Klein of WashingtonPost.com writes that Patrick's recent political experience could be seen as a factor in favor of his nomination.

Alternately, Obama could appoint a politician capable of whipping votes on the court more effectively than a typical nominee. The model here would be Earl Warren, whose background as governor of California some credit with giving him a knack for gaining the votes of fellow justices.

The hope would be that a nominee coming from a political career – retiring Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick are the obvious options here – would be better able to persuade Anthony Kennedy to form a majority with the court's liberals.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Huffington Post, Masslive.com, New Ledger, The Slate, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Hillary Clinton On SCOTUS Nominee Short List? WH Says No

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hillary Clinton On SCOTUS Short List, White House Responds



With President Obama being pulled every which way on criteria for his next Supreme Court nominee, some unusual names are starting to surface that -- if chosen -- would make the rest of the summer a lot more interesting on Capitol Hill.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined the crowd Monday morning when Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he'd heard her name discussed.

"I heard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's name today and that would be an interesting person in the mix," Hatch said on NBC's "Today" show.

He wouldn't say whether he'd support her, but he said he likes Clinton. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., added that "she's done a good job for the country, not just for Democrats."

Tea leaves, anyone?

The White House splashed cold water on the Clinton idea Monday afternoon. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama plans to keep Clinton as secretary of state, and that she's doing a fine job in that post.

But Leahy is among several top senators pressing the Obama administration, at least in television interviews, to steer away from the conventional pool and look at candidates who are not sitting judges. The last Supreme Court justice confirmed to the high court without a judicial background was William Rehnquist in 1971.

"I wish we could have some more people outside the judicial monastery," Leahy said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

Picking a wild-card Supreme Court justice in an election year might not be the president's modus operandi, but he's facing considerable pressure at least to look at the edges of the box, if not outside it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., told "Fox News Sunday" that he was "encouraged" by the possibility that Obama could choose someone "who is not a sitting judge at this time."

Perhaps Clinton would fill the bill. Plus the Supreme Court would give her a place to cool her heels for, say, the rest of her life, ensuring Obama doesn't endure a Ted Kennedy-esque Democratic challenge from within in 2012.

But the scuttlebutt was rejected at the highest levels Monday. In addition to the White House denial, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Monday morning that Clinton probably doesn't even know she's been mentioned.

"I'm sure she appreciates Senator Hatch's comments, but right now she is focused on her current job," he told Fox News.

Clinton is not the only Cabinet member who's popped up on the list of possibles. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano continues to be floated -- she was considered a candidate last year before Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter -- though Napolitano could be the Republicans' least favorite Cabinet official because of her perceived understatements about the threat of Islamic terrorism. Attorney General Eric Holder is also inevitably a backburner possibility -- though he's a bit tied up figuring out what to do with the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Diane Wood, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, are the two names most commonly mentioned as successors to Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced on Friday that he will retire at the end of this term. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland has also emerged as a top-tier candidate. Obama is said to have about 10 names on his short list.

But Lieberman on Sunday suggested Obama look way outside the box.

"Maybe we need somebody who's been a law professor, or a lawyer, a practicing lawyer, or a person in public office like a governor or a senator," he said.

In terms of elected officials, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick -- who is close to Obama -- are on the not-so-short list.

And several professors, some more inflammatory than others, have been mentioned.

Among the most controversial would be Cass Sunstein, the former University of Chicago and Harvard law professor who leads Obama's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Sunstein has taken some unusual positions, such as arguing that people should be able to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases.

Obama could also try to make history again by nominating an openly gay candidate to the high court. Former Stanford Law School professor and dean Kathleen Sullivan and Stanford Law professor Pam Karlan have been mentioned as possibilities. Both are also known for their liberal-leaning writings, legal work and commentary. Karlan, for instance, co-authored the 2009 book, "Keeping Faith with the Constitution," with appellate court nominee Goodwin Liu -- who has met resistance from Republicans in part over the contents of that book, which says constitutional principles must be "open to adaptation" as society changes.

Another history-making choice would be Leah Ward Sears, the former chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. If chosen, she would be the first black woman on the Supreme Court.

Kagan also has an academic background -- she was the dean of Harvard Law School. But Kagan is not considered a highly controversial choice. She was well-regarded for her performance at Harvard and for reaching out to conservatives. She has a thin paper trail on past positions, but that's because she has never been a judge -- something that would likely please several senators who, like Leahy, say they're looking for a change.

If Obama is spoiling for a fight, though, but doesn't wish to pull out an exotic resume, Wood would set up an explosive confirmation battle -- Wood has dissented against bans on partial-birth abortion and is known for her strong opinions on the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"He's got a lot of picks ... there's no doubt about it," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice. He said a Republican-led filibuster on the Supreme Court nominee is unlikely, but a nominee like Wood would generate at least "serious talk" of mounting one.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, warned Sunday that Republicans aren't looking for any surprises.

"If the president picks someone from the fringe instead of from the middle, or if he picks someone who will apply their feelings instead of applying the law, then that might be an extraordinary case" which could warrant a filibuster, he said on "Fox News Sunday."


Sources: Fox News, MSNBC

GOP Won't Rule Out SCOTUS Nominee Filibuster

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans Cautious On U.S. Supreme Court Filibuster But Won't Rule It Out


With no SCOTUS nominee to scrutinize, Republicans were on the defensive Sunday over the possible use of a filibuster against President Barack Obama’s upcoming Supreme Court pick – saying they wouldn’t go nuclear unless they really, really had to.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, didn't rule out using the filibuster during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press," saying he would require Democrats to muster 60 votes only if the White House tapped someone like Goodwin Liu, a liberal nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Will there be "a big fight?" host David Gregory asked?

"The answer to that is in the president's hands," said Sessions. "If we have a nominee that evidences a philosophy of judges know best... then we are going to have a big fight about that because the American people don't want that."

Sessions added that "every power should be utilized to protect the Constitution" if Obama chose a nominee "outside the mainstream."

Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), who laid down a marker on Friday for a quick nomination and confirmation, kept his foot on the accelerator, telling Gregory he wanted "a nomination very soon so we can wrap it up this summer."

Other Republicans kept open the possibility of a filibuster, but played down the likelihood the White House would actually nominate anyone so objectionable to conservatives.

Obama’s aides have narrowed their short list down to about ten names. None of the names known to be under consideration appear to be as controversial as Liu – and an administration official told POLITICO on Friday that the goal was to tap someone who was “confirmable.”

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a key conservative on the committee, said the four most mentioned potential Obama seemed acceptable on the surface and wouldn't likely be filibustered.

Jake Tapper, host of ABC’s "This Week," asked Kyl what he thought of potential nominees Elena Kagan, Diane Wood, Merrick Garland and Janet Napolitano, who have all been listed in press accounts as potential successors to Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his retirement on Friday.

"They are all nominally qualified," said Kyl, who voted against Sonia Sotomayor for the high court last year.





"The question, I think, to present is, 'Do candidates like this approach judging on the basis of each case presenting its unique facts of law... rather than with a judge coming to the bench with an ideological position?' ‘’

"It is unlikely that there will be a filibuster unless it’s an extraordinary circumstance," Kyl said, adding that "President Obama himself attempted to filibuster Justice [Samuel] Alito."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), appearing with Kyl, said he was sure Obama would pick someone in the "mainstream" – dismissing the likelihood of a filibuster as “tiny” -- but emphasized the need to counterbalance an increasingly conservative high court.

Schumer, who opposed the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, suggested Roberts misled senators by claiming he would respect existing precedent.

"In my view at least, Justice Roberts has tried to move the court very far to the right, much farther than we envisioned," said Schumer, adding that Stevens, who dissented bitterly in several recent cases, agreed.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, speaking earlier on CNN, predicted that Obama would pick a "liberal" and suggested a nomination fight could energize the party’s conservative base.

A few minutes into a discussion about the court pick, "Meet the Press" host Gregory made a startling admission.

Garland, a federal judge reportedly being considered by Obama, performed the wedding ceremony for Gregory and wife Beth Wilkinson, a prominent corporate lawyer who once worked as a prosecutor under Garland’s supervision.

Wilkinson, Gregory said during his questioning of Sessions, "worked for [Garland] at the Justice Department. He also performed our wedding ceremony."

Wilkinson became an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 1991, serving under Garland as part of the team that prosecuted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. She later served as Fannie Mae's executive vice president and is now a white collar criminal defense attorney in the Washington office of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.


Sources: Politico, Meet The Press, MSNBC

GOP Prepares For SCOTUS Court Battle, Targets Liberal Dems

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Right Gears For SCOTUS Court Fight, Not Filibuster


Conservative Judicial Activists say they won’t ask their Republican allies to go to the mat over President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens by pressing for the ultimate weapon in a court fight – a Filibuster.

Instead, they say the nomination of a Democrat to the court will be an opportunity to cement the support of the tea party movement, broaden their base, and motivate supporters to turn out to support Republicans in the mid-term elections in November.

The measured strategy is a tacit acknowledgement of political reality: Conservatives would find it difficult, if not impossible, to play the filibuster card.

The reason for that dates back to the epic battles of 2005 over President George W. Bush’s nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

At the time, members of the Senate’s Democratic minority threatened to Filibuster both nominees, as they had with other Bush court nominees. The Republican majority countered by threatening to exercise the so-called “nuclear option,” using its clout to change Senate rules to ban filibusters

The GOP rallying cry, led by the Bush White House, was that such rare and high-level presidential nominees deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

Both sides were forced to stand down when seven Democrats and seven Republicans formed the “Gang of 14,” and vowed not to support their party leadership in either strategy unless extraordinary conditions arose. None did, and both Roberts and Alito were confirmed.

Today, the “Gang of 14” is a depleted group. One of the Democrats left the Senate. Three of the seven Republicans who were founding members are no longer in office – two by way of election defeats and one by resignation.

Of the four remaining GOP members, one is Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), who is facing a tough primary challenge based in part on arguments that he moved too far to the center.

That could put extra pressure on the three remaining members – Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Susan Collins and Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine – if they were isolated.

But the impassioned calls for up-or-down votes for Roberts and Alito still resonate among conservatives, and that has left most of the movement unwilling to endorse the tactic and be vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy.

“The Judicial Crisis Network is opposed to a filibuster,” said Carrie Severino, the group’s chief counsel and a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.

And Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, concedes that “Republicans just have no history of filibustering to prevent an up-or-down vote and I think the last place they’d do it is the Supreme Court.

To be sure, even without an outright filibuster, the nominee and the Obama White House won’t get a pass.

At a minimum, Senate Republicans will use the Judiciary Committee’s hearing as “a teaching moment” to lay out the distinctions between conservative and liberal judicial philosophies and focus attention on any controversial or liberal bent in the nominee’s background, said one conservative legal activist.

In addition, the depressed approval ratings of both Congress and Obama has emboldened conservatives and their Republican Senate allies to be more aggressive with this nominee than they were when the president nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year.

Conservative groups have been meeting for weeks plotting strategies for opposing the prospective nominees whose names are circulating on short lists in Washington, according to Levey.

They’ve also debated the best junctures in the nominating process to launch television ads and mobilize a grassroots network that Marks said has grown to exceed 4 million since the nomination showdowns over Roberts, Alito and Sotomayor.

Their targets would be same set of be-sieged, moderate Democrats who joined the “Gang of 14” and who came under withering pressure during the health care debate.

Among them: Arkansas’ Sen. Blanche Lambert Lincoln, Pennsylvania’s Sen. Arlen Specter, and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson.

The primary objective of the campaigns would be to drive down favorable votes for Obama’s pick, if not defeat his nominee. Either way, conservatives say they will come out with a winning issue for the fall.

“If they oppose the nominee, then you have used the election to impact the confirmation process,” said Levey. “And if they support the nominee, then you’re basically using the confirmation fight to impact their election chances.”

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) suggested the possibility of a filibuster even before Stevens’s retirement. Appearing on “Fox News Sunday” last week he said Republicans would consider it if Obama nominated “an overly ideological person.”

Appearing on the same show, Specter, the Republican turned Democrat from Pennsylvania, said he hoped Stevens didn’t retire this year because “gridlock in the Senate might well produce a filibuster.”

With that road blocked, conservatives hope to score their real victories in the voting booths, and by engaging tea party activists, whose main issue has been the deficit and federal spending, is critical to that goal.

The conservative interest groups that engage in court fights have been quietly reaching out to leaders of the movement to encourage them to incorporate the issue of the court and judges in their rallies and join them in the fight.

“Now that there are questions about whether health care is constitutional, and that will be a court case that goes to the Supreme Court, the Tea Party movement has a direct reason to pay attention to the Third Branch,” said Gary Marks, the Judicial Crisis Network’s executive director.

It’s a sensitive courtship. The tea party movement is loosely organized and difficult to define even by its own members. It’s also become particularly prickly about being viewed as part of any establishment, including the political parties.

Still, any tea party rally offers ample evidence of what could become a natural alliance with the judicial activists, including homemade signs calling for allegiance to the Constitution and fierce objections to mandatory health care coverage.

“We don’t want to impose how we do things on them. We just began reaching out to them to say that we want to be a resource to you,” said Marks.

Those entreaties haven’t produced a major shift yet, but tea party activists agree there could be an easy symmetry between the two causes.

Karin Hoffman, founder of a South Florida tea party group called DC Works For Us, said the emerging confirmation fight hasn’t been a primary topic of conversation in tea party circles.

But she said it would a logical focus, given that many activists have turned their attention to supporting state-level lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Democratic healthcare overhaul Obama signed into law last month.

“It is fundamentally unconstitutional. You cannot require people to buy something,” said Hoffman, predicting the challenge would wind up before the Supreme Court – an assessment with which most legal experts disagree.

Tea party activists “would inundate the Senate with calls and emails if there was a case coming up or if there was a nominee that was just awful,” she said, explaining she has “no confidence whatsoever” that Obama would tap a nominee who adheres to the strict Constitutionalist perspective embraced by tea partiers.


Sources: MSNBC, Politico

Obama Vows To Move Quickly On Stevens' Replacement

President Obama Pledges To Move Quickly On Justice Stevens' Replacement


Justice John Paul Stevens, who came to embody the liberal voice on an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, announced Friday that he is retiring — giving President Barack Obama his second seat to fill on the nation’s high court.

Stevens’s announcement, coming less than two weeks before his 90th birthday, was not a surprise but marks the passing of an era on a court he joined in December 1975, an appointment of President Gerald Ford.

Stevens said Friday he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July. He said he hopes his successor is confirmed "well in advance of the commencement of the court's next term."

Speaking to reporters in the Rose Garden after returning from a trip to Europe, Obama offered ample praise for Stevens and promised to move quickly to replace him.

“Justice Stevens has courageously served his country from the moment he enlisted the day before Pearl Harbor to his long and distinguished tenure on the Supreme Court,” Obama said. “During that tenure, he has stood as as an impartial guardian of the law and he has worn the judicial robe with honor and humility. He has applied the Constitution and laws of the land with fidelity and restraint,” the president said, pointedly rejecting conservatives’ claims that Stevens has practiced judicial activism on the court.

“While we cannot replace Justice Stevens’s experience and wisdom, I will seek someone in the coming weeks with similar qualities: an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people,” Obama said.

While Obama’s comments Friday didn’t shed much new light on whom he might pick, the president did vow to select someone who “knows that in a democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.” That appeared to be a reference to a recent Supreme Court decision Obama has denounced that allows corporations to spend money for and against federal candidates.

Sources close to the process have said the president and his advisers are focused primarily on several potential nominees who were considered last year, including 7th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood, 59; Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49; and D.C. Circuit Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland, 57.

Other possible contenders are State Department legal adviser and former Yale law dean Harold Koh, 55, who would also become the Supreme Court’s first Asian-American justice; and Cass Sunstein, 55, a longtime constitutional law professor now overseeing the federal government’s regulation-approval unit at the Office of Management and Budget.

Stevens’s replacement is not very likely to change the ideological makeup of the court because Obama is sure to replace Stevens with a liberal-leaning justice. But Stevens was at times able to rally swing votes toward his cause, as when he helped build a majority to block some of President George W. Bush’s expansions of executive power after Sept. 11.

Stevens’s retirement leaves Obama facing a choice. Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court last year — at a time when Democrats had the 60 votes needed to block any Republican filibuster attempt, though she ultimately won some Republican votes.

The landscape is different now, as Democrats have just 59 votes and Republicans haven’t ruled out attempts to block an Obama nominee.

That means Obama must decide whether to put forth a liberal nominee who is sure to draw a fight from Republicans — which could help Obama rally his dispirited liberal base right before the upcoming midterm elections this fall.

Or he could decide to offer someone who is less objectionable to the GOP, in hopes of avoiding a major distraction as he tries to get major pieces of his legislative agenda through, including financial regulatory reform, campaign finance law changes and an education bill.

The White House said a representative from the Supreme Court delivered a letter from Stevens to the White House at 10:30 a.m. Friday announcing his intent to retire this summer. White House Counsel Bob Bauer connected on the phone at 10:45 a.m. with the president, who was returning home from Prague on Air Force One.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) signaled that the GOP is ready for a fight over Obama’s choice. “Americans can expect Senate Republicans to make a sustained and vigorous case for judicial restraint and the fundamental importance of an even-handed reading of the law,” he said.

Praise for Stevens came in from Democrats. “Justice Stevens’s unique and enduring perspective is irreplaceable; his stalwart adherence to the rule of law is unparalleled. The federal judiciary, and indeed the entire nation, will miss his principled jurisprudence,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he hopes Republicans will get on board with Obama’s nominee. “At a time when Americans are yearning for bipartisanship, we hope the president will choose a candidate who both merits consensus support and lives up to Justice Stevens’s fine legacy. We hope both sides of the aisle in the Senate would quickly confirm such a nominee,” Schumer said in a statement.

Toward the end of his time on the court, Stevens increasingly played the role of liberal resistance to the increasingly rightward-tilting bench, which saw the additions of conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito by Bush.

As for the potential successors, Obama and Wood both taught at the University of Chicago, and the president is said to be particularly fond of her. “Judge Wood was way up there and is from his, so to speak, home circuit,” said John Brittain, a well-connected civil rights lawyer, recently.

Wood is well-regarded by liberal groups for defending abortion rights and the rights of immigrants. At 59, she is somewhat older than recent Republican nominees.

Kagan could have more staying power on the court, but she is viewed more warily by civil rights and civil liberties advocates. She was a decidedly centrist force as a policy adviser in President Bill Clinton’s White House, and as dean of Harvard Law School she made a concerted effort to bring conservatives onto the faculty. Kagan, who has never served as a judge and has little courtroom experience, also has a slimmer paper trail than other possible nominees.

D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland, 57, is seen as a pick that would signal Obama is intent on avoiding a fight, as even conservative activists believe Garland would attract several Republican votes.

The choice of Garland could be appealing to Obama, who has viewed himself as a consensus builder. Some also suspect Obama will pick a male nominee to replace Stevens and opt for another woman if and when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg leaves the court.

Koh, a prominent human rights advocate, seems to be trying to appear a bit more muscular as the Supreme Court derby nears. In a speech last week, he stepped forward with the first serious effort by the Obama administration to mount a public defense of the legality of the drone strikes that have become one of the most favored tactics in Obama’s war on terror.


Sources: Politico