Feed on
Posts
Comments
«
»

SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein: Harris could be next Supreme Court pick

Feb 17th, 2012 by

SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein has pulled out his crystal ball in an effort to figure out who will be President Barack Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee, should the president be elected to a second term.

Ok, the Goldstein & Russell partner doesn’t have an actual clairvoyant instrument. Instead, he used a set of factors that Obama would likely consider in choosing a nominee should Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg resign during his second term. Those factors include, but are not in any way limited to, gender (the nominee almost certainly will be a woman) and race or ethnicity (there’s a good chance the nominee will also be a minority group member) since diversity has been a top priority for the Obama administration.

After considering dozens of possibilities, Goldstein concluded that the most likely candidate would be California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

The former San Francisco District Attorney, whose mother is from India and whose father is Jamaican-American, has “long been well known to the Administration, having been the first California elected official to endorse Barack Obama’s candidacy,” Goldstein writes. At 47, she is also the ideal age to be a Supreme Court nominee in the next three to four years.

But, Goldstein notes, Harris’ own future political plans may not make a Supreme Court nod that appealing to her. By the time Ginsburg retires, he wrote, Harris will either be running for reelection or newly reelected, with her sights possibly set next on the governor’s office.

–by Kimberly Atkins, Dolan Media Newswires

[Print] [Email] [Facebook] [Twitter]

Posted in Uncategorized

2 Responses to “SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein: Harris could be next Supreme Court pick”

  1. dan cooper says:
    February 18, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Kamala Harris is going to make a deal with the banks. In return she is giving them RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY.

    HISTORY OF RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES
    1. Given for illegal merger of banks (we can see the effects of that now)
    2. Given to Telecom Company for illegal wire taps. (Fisa bill that led to the patriot act)
    3. Given for unconstitutional use of torture
    4. Given to California Judges for taking bribes. (SBX211)

    Robert kennedy spoke out against retro active immunity…”QUOTE” The very idea of “retroactive immunity” … is so radical, so repugnant to the most basic principles of the “rule of law,” that only one prior attempt can be found in recent history. The efforts by some in Congress (in 1965) to enact a law retroactively legalizing the mergers by six large banks which clearly — as a federal court found — were… illegal under our nation’s antitrust laws.
    The banks knew when they merged that they were almost certainly violating anti-trust laws. But they did it anyway. And when courts began ruling that their behavior was illegal, they ran to Congress to demand that a law be passed granting them amnesty, claiming that the consequences would be ruinous if they were held accountable under the law.
    But the very concept of retroactive amnesty, the idea that corporations could break the law and then have Congress pass a special law legalizing their lawbreaking conduct, was so profoundly offensive to Sen. Robert Kennedy (who had been the Attorney General when the banks broke the law with their mergers), as well as then-Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, that they engaged in extraordinary efforts to try to put a stop to this Congressional travesty.when the banks broke the law with their mergers
    Robert Kennedy could not stop them.

    This is BULLSH*T. If the average person broke the law they go to prison, but when these large corperations steal hundreds of billions they get bailouts from the government and the get immunity from prosecution. BULLSH*T

  2. dan cooper says:
    February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    I wrote a letter to Miss Harris and she will not respond. here is a copy of that letter.

    Dear Kamala Harris / Attorney Gengeral

    I am very concerned with the intergity of the California Judicial system, will you please respond with your opinions on these Constitutional challenges on Senate Bill SBX211.

    1. How does SBX211 restore due process

    2. Does SBX211 violates Article 1 section 9

    3. Does SBX211 violates the 14th amendment (no equal protections)

    4. Does SBX211 violate the checks and balances between legislative and judicial powers.

    5. Do you think that Judges should disclose the county payments at the onset of any trial where the county is either a party to the case or has a financial interest.

    6. Please give your opinion in regards to the fact that Judges refuse to rescues themselves when requested under CCP170
    and then Judges then find themselves unbiased and then file an order striking statement.

    Dear Miss Harris
    Your responce will be greatly appreciated

Leave a Reply