Supreme Court Justice Souter, elected to the bench on the High Court by George H W Bush in 1990, yesterday announced his upcoming retirement. During his confirmation process in 1990, Souter was thought of as a strict constitutionalist, and a believer in the original intent of the Constitution. Over the years however Souter proved to be a consistent disappointment to Constitutionalists, expressing opinions and rulings that put him squarely in the camp of those the Justices that believe that the Constititution is ‘flexible.’ Take from this what you will, I believe that the Constitution is not open for debate or judicial review, short of the amendment process – much of the loss of freedoms of the past decades can be traced to judicial activism, Supreme Court included. Recall Kelo v City of London in 2005, where the Court ruled that the city of New London could in fact use eminent domain to take private property and use that property for economic development (ie, broader tax base business development). This case was the most recent example of the Court’s activism, eroding individual American property rights for an ambiguous notion of local tax benefit for higher-tax base businesses and a violation of the 5th Amendment. Justice Souter voted in favor of the city of New London in the Kelo case.




With the above in context, I jumped on the computer in the office this morning, looking to peruse the left-of-center blogs (so you don’t have to) to see what they are saying about Obama’s soon-to-be pick for the Supreme Court. One comment took the cake from everything that I saw.




Huffington Post –




Oliver Willis – “President Obama should appoint an honest-to-goodness liberal to the Supreme Court.” ”Can we get a progressive supreme court justice that will stand up for America’s values on the bench? Yes, we can.”


Mr Willis echoes the sentiments of many in the Left, that Obama will nominate a ‘progressive’ (I’m sure they are right.) What does this mean exactly? What is a ‘progressive’?

From Wikipedia – “American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution , and they oppose the growing influence of corporations.” They are more concerned with envrironmentalism than mainstream liberals, and often support creation of a universal health care system” Among other things I may add.


With the above in mind, enter our current president, a self-proclaimed progressive, soon to offer up a Supreme Court nominee. The Media and Liberals are already offering up several possible candidates here are a few and the ethnic/sex component –
1 – Sonia Sotomayor – Hispanic, Appeals Court Judge, considered a legal liberal
2 – Elena Kagan – served as clerk to liberal justice Marshall, woman
3 – Seth Waxman – commited liberal, won Boumediene v. Bush, upholding habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees
4 – Diane Wood – Chicagoan, Appeals Court Judge, made her name by being the liberal voice on a conservative bench
5 – Harold Koh – Asian, known to support ‘international law’ over the US Constitution, Dean of Yale Law School
6 – Black, Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Clinton, on the board of the liberal American Constituion Society



The principal theme in the MSM is that the Obamanation is going to nominate someone that is black, asian, female or other and certainly progressive. Comprehension and defense of the Constitution not being the overriding factor here. Progressives (even more than most liberals), place a paramount value on racial identity and social justice through income redistribution, something that leadership now is not even afraid to admit. Remember my blog on Chairman Waxman? Mob rule, group identity, subjective ‘redistribution’, vs. implicit limited Constitutional restraint.