A strong opinion that many of my fellow progressives may strongly disagree with: Biden should put Orin Kerr, a fairly conservative Republican, on the Ninth Circuit.
Look, I anticipate spending the next 4 years mad at the Biden admin for being too timid with judicial nominations. I firmly believe Biden needs to play by the new rules, not the old ones. The days of Ds slowly nominating a bunch of mid-50s moderate prosecutors are over.
Big-picture, Biden's job is to unskew our Trump/Leo-skewed courts. In my view that means putting a lot of brilliant, dynamic, solidly progressive 30- and 40-something black women in circuit seats.
So when I say I think Biden should put Orin Kerr on the Ninth Circuit, I don't mean he ought to put a bunch of people like Orin Kerr (as if) in circuit judgships. I mean he ought to put Orin Kerr on the Ninth Circuit.
Why? 1. He'd be a magnificent judge. 2. Bush II renominated Roger Gregory to CA4, and I believe in reciprocating olive branches.
3. Principle should be rewarded. Orin Kerr showed as much principle in the Trump era as any conservative I know.
My 4th reason is the one that persuaded me.
4. To remind ourselves who WE are. We're not Trump. We're not McConnell and Graham and Leo and Severino. We're the good side.
(Plus I'm a sucker for the grand contrarian gesture.)
Fair to say most responding think this is a terrible idea. I'm fine with people saying so and don't take it amiss. Honestly I view the blistering reaction as encouraging overall.
Nominating Kerr would also be an exceptionally fine middle finger to Trump and Trumpism, and I believe in that, too.
And in nakedly pragmatic terms, maybe one vote for an R helps give backbone for supporting a few more young, diverse, progressive circuit nominees. Backbone to Biden, or his noms team, Durbin, or Manchin/Sinema/etc. Fixing the mess we're in goes way, way beyond any one CA9 seat.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's growing willingness to acknowledge the ways in which Trump's work of building and clinging to power resemble Hitler's. Good.
But this week the history that keeps flashing in my mind isn't Nazi Germany, it's pre-WWII Japan's May 15 Incident.
A thread. 1/
Japan after WWI was a two-party parliamentary constitutional democracy. The government functioned reasonably well into the 30s, weathering the depression better than its peers in the US and Europe. 2/
But a right-wing anti-democratic cancer took root in the lower ranks of the Japanese military. This cancer led to Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and the assassination of a former cabinet minister in 1932. 3/
An unexplained, unsigned Friday-evening miscellaneous order is not how the Supreme Court of the United States speaks effectively to the American public at historic moments.
Look, I wish it was too. It isn't.
Well-intentioned, smart people are framing the Supreme Court's order as blunt, emphatic, powerful, a devastating back of the hand. And obviously we're all safer if people buy it. But it ain't reality.
Everyone understands the stakes. The nation is in danger, democracy is in danger. We needed the Supreme Court to rise to the challenge. Instead, it belly flopped.
My reading of Justice Alito's statement for himself & Justice Thomas seems to be a minority view, but I disagree, at least tentatively, w those who think the Court's ruling was really a 9-0 defeat for Trump & that Alito was saying he'd reject the suit. 1/
The order stated that the Court denied for lack of standing Texas's motion for leave to file the suit.
Alito w Thomas made a "Statement" which said that in his view, the Court doesn't have discretion to deny leave to file this kind of suit. So, they disagreed w the Court. 2/
Here's where it gets hazy.
Alito then said, "I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue." 3/
The game is changing. What's unfolding right now in the Texas v. Pa. case in the Supreme Court, in my view, is significantly different than what came before.
Republican politicians have launched a sneak attack on democracy. It's alarming.
Even as recently as a day or two ago, most informed observers viewed the Texas case as a bad joke, evil but harmless. Texas's initial filing was so embarrassing their own solicitor general didn't sign it. Trump's motion to intervene by John Eastman may have been even lamer.
The first hint of danger came on Wednesday when a gang of 17 conservative AGs led by Missouri's AG Eric Schmitt filed a brief backing Texas.