The NYT reports: "The White House is vetting Jane L. Kelly...."
Her nomination could intensify pressure on Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to break with his party and hold hearings on Mr. Obama’s Supreme Court candidate. In a Senate floor speech in 2013, Mr. Grassley effusively praised Judge Kelly, who has spent her career in Iowa and is well regarded in legal circles there. He quoted from a letter from retired Judge David R. Hansen, a Republican appointee, who called her a “forthright woman of high integrity and honest character” and a person of “exceptionally keen intellect” before voting to confirm her for the appeals court post.
And this is striking:
Five years into her tenure [in the federal public defender’s office for the Northern District of Iowa], she was nearly killed in a brutal attack while jogging on a popular trail in a Cedar Rapids park. Discovered by passers-by lying facedown in a pool of blood, she spent several months recovering and endured multiple surgeries. The crime was never solved, although there was speculation it might have been connected to her work. Still, Judge Kelly later told The Des Moines Register that she had no doubt about returning to her job as a criminal defense lawyer, which she did immediately after recovering from the assault.
Posts
32 comments:
Judge Kelly is also a Harvard Law classmate of Obama's.
Nice setup. From Chuck Grassley's state and she sailed through her Eighth Circuit confirmation vote.
Honest 2. (of women): chaste.
She's another Kagan or Sotomayor. Highly regarded woman = boilerplate for lefty.
She comes with a victim story.
Obama likes her.
Just say no.
Can we stop with the trial balloons? You want to nominate someone, nominate!
This is NOT news.
“So I, as much as anyone, know how important it is to be fair and impartial and make decisions on things other than bias, favor or prejudice.”
Precisely what things, ma'am?
And Chuck Grassley is not a senator?
"could intensify pressure"...
It won't. Obama can sod off.
Is she severely conservative? If so, great. Otherwise, no.
The once and future 8th circuit judge. This nomination is going nowhere and it is amusing that the media thinks that there is any "pressure" being applied.
Obama is done and his legacy has already ended other than his frequent speech making.
And seriously can he not find a *married* woman?
Kelly is a lightweight in the world of judges and should never be elevated ahead of judges of any ilk with more substantial credentials. It amazes me she got nominated for the Eighth - unless women Prosecutors, who have been victimized by violence, are given special consideration.
The fact that Obama is willing to nominate any individual is per se grounds for their rejection. Obama is the enemy.
That's just the way it is. He may as well nominate Rev. Wright.
They are trying to set up the narrative.
"It might apply pressure" is code talk for, "Use it to apply pressure because we think that'll work!"
As Trump said, "Delay Delay Delay"
I forgot that Grassley is up for reelection this year. It's a purple state; with notoriously competitive Congressional districts. But Grassley won with 64% of the vote last time. (The 2010 Tea Party 'wave' election, against a weak Democrat.)
They could force Grassley to hold a hearing (or not). But they haven't applied the "nuclear option" to SCOTUS confirmations. And there ain't no way that 40 Republicans wouldn't filibuster. It's a non-issue. Not happening.
My suggestion to Obama; nominate Mike Luttig, Brett Kavanaugh or Jeffrey Sutton. They'd be confirmed. If the concern is over a vacancy on the court, and efficient workload management and a qualified judge who could be confirmed by this senate; well there you go. Get the senate's advice, and you'll get their consent.
"unless women Prosecutors, who have been victimized by violence, are given special consideration."
You're kidding, right ?
This was just The NYT's puff piece. Let us wait and see what others have to say - if indeed this is anything but a head fake or a trial balloon.
This is an issue to fire up the left base. Everyone else can wait for the next President. It was smart of the GOP to say no hearings make it an election issue. Whoever Obama nominates will have to be the judge the Dems are stuck with in the election. First question to Hillary: will you re-nominate [insert name] ?
And that person's background will be vetted by the media like a Vice Presidential nominee.
It will be interesting to see who will step up to be Obama's pawn
No means no.
Why do you let Pres. Obama troll you this way, Professor Althouse?
This isn't serious. It's for Obama's amusement, and secondarily to keep stoked the Dem resentments against that terrible fascist Scalia in particular and the GOP in general.
Another haute bourgeois do-gooder Harvard law grad serving as a public defender. Jeez I wonder WTF her politics are?
@ Valentine Smith: You're probably right in your guess, there's a pretty strong correlation. But it's not absolute:
Ted Cruz, as it happens, is a Harvard Law grad. His letters of recommendation to Chief Justice Rehnquist came from Prof. Charles Fried, who was Reagan's solicitor general from 1985-1989 and is the few token conservatives on the Harvard Law faculty, and from Prof. Alan Dershowitz, who's on almost the opposite side of the political spectrum. (HLS has some who are to Dershwitz' left, but they lack his national prominence.)
Well, Obama is going to try some strategy like that.
Here's your speech, Grassley: "Judge Kelly is a good person that I admire. But I support my party's decision to withhold action on any nominee by the current administration, and to let the people decide in the 2016 election who will nominate the next Supreme Court justice."
"Kelly is a lightweight in the world of judges and should never be elevated ahead of judges of any ilk with more substantial credentials."
The same was said of Justice Thomas when he was nominated. There have been lightweight and nitwit justices on the court over the whole of its existence. The appointments are nothing if not political. Sometimes, accidentally, we do get substantial justices.
"Here's your speech, Grassley: 'Judge Kelly is a good person that I admire. But I support my party's decision to withhold action on any nominee by the current administration, and to let the people decide in the 2016 election who will nominate the next Supreme Court justice.'"
No matter how the Republican faithful try to spin it, the threat by the Republicans to refuse to even consider any judges Obama might nominate simply shouts out loud what is already apparent: the Republicans are anti-democratic obstructionists and childish bullies. It's not about "letting the people speak in the 2016 election," it's about the Republicans declaring they will take their ball and bat and go home because the game isn't going as they like it. The Dems are mostly putzes, but the Republicans are even putzier, and proud of it.
Repulicans have carried out their duties perfectly. They advised the President they will wait until the next president is sworn in. That Obama insists on playing politics, instead of governing, defines the smallness of Obama.
The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House is closely guarding details about Mr. Obama’s search to fill the opening created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Note the lie. The leak was directed by the WH so obviously they're not closely guarding the details.
"Robert Cook said...
"Here's your speech, Grassley: 'Judge Kelly is a good person that I admire. But I support my party's decision to withhold action on any nominee by the current administration, and to let the people decide in the 2016 election who will nominate the next Supreme Court justice.'"
No matter how the Republican faithful try to spin it, the threat by the Republicans to refuse to even consider any judges Obama might nominate simply shouts out loud what is already apparent: the Republicans are anti-democratic obstructionists and childish bullies. It's not about "letting the people speak in the 2016 election," it's about the Republicans declaring they will take their ball and bat and go home because the game isn't going as they like it. The Dems are mostly putzes, but the Republicans are even putzier, and proud of it."
What a steaming pile. How are the GOP being "anti-democratic obstructionists?
I dunno. Being anti-democratic, in the true meaning of the word, is not terrible. Pure democracy is mob rule. As much as people like to gush about Athenian democracy, at times it was indistinguishable from a torches and pitchforks mob and in the end it fundamentally failed. Now if Congress was being anti-republican then I'd be concerned, but they are not. Ain't nothing in the Constitution that says they have to vote on any particular candidate. They can advise by voting down a nominee. They can advise by holding hearings and then not going to a floor vote. They can advise by refusing to consider a nominee. The result is the same and Congress's role is fulfilled regardless.
Or did you mean to capitalize "democratic" as in "anti-Democratic Party." That's true as far as it goes, but also plainly obvious.
"How are the GOP being 'anti-democratic obstructionists?'"
How are they not? How have they not been?
Possible Grassley speech excerpt: "But I support my party's decision to withhold action on any nominee by the current administration, and to let the people decide in the 2016 election who will nominate the next Supreme Court justice."
He already said something better. That he supports the Biden rule (something Biiden proposed in 1992) Biden now says he was talking about retirements (which can be done with an effective date of the appointment of a successor)
Post a Comment