Obama has announced his nominee for the open Supreme Court slot, and I am unimpressed. Apparently, he’s a compromise: a centrist (which in America, means leaning rightward) who won’t get the Republicans in congress too upset. There’s also one weird comment in that report:
Supreme Court nominees tend to be in their early 50s. In choosing Judge Garland, Mr. Obama very likely gave away the possibility of a justice who would serve on the Supreme Court perhaps three decades. Instead, he imposed a sort of actuarial term limit on the nomination and thus his legacy, offering Senate Republicans a compromise not only on ideology, but also on tenure.
Compromise, compromise, compromise. We always compromise. The other side never does.
Obama noted some good things about Garland.
The president said Judge Garland is “widely recognized not only as one of America’s sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence. These qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle.”
You know, I could believe all that — conservatives can be decent people, of course. But what I’m concerned about is the issues. What’s his position on women’s reproductive rights? Are we going to see more creeping religion in government? What about campaign finance reform and the excessive influence of billionaires on elections?
Not a word about any of that in the article. He’s a total cipher as far as I know. But there’s lots of stuff about all the Republicans who love him, and how Orrin Hatch has been promoting him for years, which just screams at me that I can’t trust him.