Granholm goes to the White House … and the Supreme Court?

posted at 12:27 pm on May 18, 2009 by Karl

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, one of Pres. Obama’s candidates for the Supreme Court, will be visiting the White House tomorrow, raising her profile among those handicapping the nomination.

These types of visits tend to surround Supreme Court nominations, and frequently are nothing more than courtesy calls. Granholm has distinct weaknesses as a nominee, but probably no fatal ones. She has no prior judicial experience. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) withdrew his support for her, though one would expect him to back her if Obama actually nominated her. Moreover, Granholm has had tax problems, though at this juncture that seems more like a prerequisite for Obama than a disqualification. Besides, with the Senate Republicans already lowering expectations that they are planning any major political fight, Obama has a relatively free hand.

What Granholm has going for her is unpopularity. Many blame her for Michigan’s dire economic conditions, which are far worse than the national average. If Obama nominated her to the Court, the political prospects for Michigan Democrats — and ultimately Obama — would likely improve at the margins. Michiganders would be glad to see Granholm go. At least one poll shows Lt. Gov. John Cherry losing to prospective challengers; he would probably be more formidable as governor. Obama’s intrusive meddling with Chrysler and General Motors on behalf of the UAW demonstrates the president’s interest in holding onto the Rust Belt now and in 2012.

Granholm, like the other names being floated, also fits Obama’s long-standing suggestion that Supreme Court Justices should have “empathy” for the disadvantaged. Indeed, on the campaign trail Obama invoked “empathy” as the reason he opposed the nomination of now-Chief Justice John Roberts, who told the Senate he viewed the position as being a neutral umpire. It is probably not a coincidence that we are starting to see outlets like The New Yorker running pieces on how insensitive Chief Justice Roberts is to the plight of the disadvantaged. Lefty lapdogs like Jeffrey Toobin certainly recognize that the White House will sell Granholm — or any other Obama nominee — as a necessary balance to the cruel white men appointed by fmr. Pres. Bush.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

When she was re-elected for her second term she promised Michigan that in five years we would be “blown away”.
And we have. The state is broke, companies and workers are fleeing and taxes on the rise. She sure blew us away.
And now she can do for the Supreme Court what she did to Michigan.

mechkiller_k on May 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Hang on a sec. She has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE..never served as a Judge?!?!?

Has that happened a lot in the past?? Putting some one that’s never been a judge on the SCOTUS???

I know we have a bumbling fool in the White House but…???

BigWyo on May 18, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Oh good. One of the worst governors in the country on the Supreme Court. I guess this means Ahnuld and Patterson would be next on Obama’s list should he get to pick a few more justices.

Doughboy on May 18, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Not to mention the worst Governor ever–Blagojevich!

Come to think of it, Eliot Spitzer does have experience as an Attorney General…

Steve Z on May 18, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Obama’s playbook is to destroy all in his path before installing the socialist agenda. Michigan was preemtively decimated by Granholm. SCOTUS nomination is her Scooby snack. Too bad for Michigan that the city of Detroit is within her borders.

Zorg on May 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM

So how do her penumbras emanate?

CDeb on May 18, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Given her glee over receiving Federal stimulus money and her failure to speak up on behalf of private industry when the administration inserted itself into what should have been private decisions regarding disposition of GMC and Chrysler, I’d say her penumbras emanate very strongly indeed. Her appointment to the SC would not be applauded by states’ rights defenders.

Dee2008 on May 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM

What Granholm has going for her is unpopularity. Many blame her for Michigan’s dire economic conditions, which are far worse than the national average.

This ought to be a consideration. If she can’t keep her state prosperous, can she think through the effect of her decisions on the bench?

njcommuter on May 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Rush is talking about this right now – he says it isn’t about SCOTUS, but The Precedent’s new emission standards for autos sold in the US.

ladyingray on May 18, 2009 at 2:11 PM

It is a good strategy for them to first nominate someone who sucks so bad that they don’t have a chance of being confirmed. Obama needs to help his red state ‘rats and his RINOS win some points back home.

When they get attacked by conservatives for confirming a left wing radical, they point to their rejecting of the first nominee and argue that they were going to end up with a liberal anyway and didn’t want to be seen as obstructionists.

Buddahpundit on May 18, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Rush is talking about this right now – he says it isn’t about SCOTUS, but The Precedent’s new emission standards for autos sold in the US.

ladyingray on May 18, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Yeah, they’re starting new, more awesome CAFE standards to finish off the car business for Toyota and Honda so that Government Motors can sell us all cars. Come on now, Obama isn’t going to nominate someone with no judicial experience, he’s going to want as much wacko liberal experience as possible.

John_Locke on May 18, 2009 at 2:18 PM

If Obama really wants a Harriet Myers of his own…go ahead and be an idiot. Nothing unusual for this administration.

No Judicial Experience means you shouldn’t be on the highest court in the land. I understand judges can be just as radical as any politician, but at least they know the ins and outs of the judicial process. This woman will be driven by nothing but emotion and ideology even more so than most liberal judges. She would be a weak justice for Obama, even though he claims to want someone who can form coalitions on the court. I do not see this tadpole of a justice convincing the one swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, of ever voting her way.

Daemonocracy on May 18, 2009 at 2:26 PM

“Obama invoked “empathy” as the reason he opposed the nomination of now-Chief Justice John Roberts, who told the Senate he viewed the position as being a neutral umpire.”

It’s almost as if Professor Obama doesn’t know that judges are required to take an oath explicitly stating just that-

“I . . . do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.”

Empathy in a judicial setting not only violates the judge’s oath but also the Constitution- by showing “emapthy” for certain segments of society, judges would thus be favouring them over other segments. Thus, there would no longer be equality under the law. I’m astonished that there isn’t a huge uproar about this in America- the President is saying that he wants to appoint judges who will discriminate against certain people or groups of people based on their economic status, race, orientation, gender, etc, etc.

There’s a reason that justice should be blind.

Jay Mac on May 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Granholm has distinct weaknesses as a nominee, but probably no fatal ones. She has no prior judicial experience.

One of these things is not like the other . . . Karl, how can you say she has no fatal flaws and in the next sentence proclaim, “She has no prior judicial experience”???! Maybe you’re analyzing according to the Democrat/liberal playbook and rules, in which you’re probably right. ;-)

Two thoughts:

1) She’s a distraction to the real nominee.

or

2) She’s the nominee. Granholm’s a hyper-liberal like Obama and will advocate his positions.

We’ve been reading about FDR in school recently. When Congress showed opposition to his policies, FDR said he’d just appoint judges to the SCOTUS that would ensure his policies would get passed when they came up as “unconstitutional.”

Given Granholm’s lack of judicial experience and her ultra-liberal positions and experience (She oversaw the death of Michigan’s economy, she can move on to bigger things and kill the US economy! great.), this seems like the only logical conclusion if she’s the nominee.

conservative pilgrim on May 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM

After she was first elected, we were told she was an up and coming star and there were stories about how sad it was that she was born in Canada and therefore not eligible for national office, blah blah blah.

And then she governed. We don’t hear those stories anymore.

This state has been going down since she took over, and her response? Wait for it………my predecessor (a republican) screwed things up so bad there’s not much we can do.

Sounds perfect for Obama.

jjjdad on May 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM

I’m astonished that there isn’t a huge uproar about this in America- the President is saying that he wants to appoint judges who will discriminate against certain people or groups of people based on their economic status, race, orientation, gender, etc, etc.

There’s a reason that justice should be blind.

Jay Mac on May 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM

There’s no uproar, because it’s been going on for decades. I agree with you – 100% – regarding the point of your post. But, it’s been acceptable to discriminate against white, heterosexual, males – for a very long time. And, if you’re a white, heterosexual, male, Christian and Conservative … I’m surprised that we’re not in a Gulag, right now.

OhEssYouCowboys on May 18, 2009 at 2:40 PM

She fits in well with Obama-nation’s death to America agenda.

darktood on May 18, 2009 at 2:44 PM

She’s useless, but the important question – when one of the Golden Calf’s auto industry asset seizure cases goes to the Supreme Court, will she have to recuse herself?

JEM on May 18, 2009 at 2:56 PM

According to Rush, this isn’t about the SCOTUS. It’s about creating some green car initiative.

Daggett on May 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Hang on a sec. She has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE..never served as a Judge?!?!?

Has that happened a lot in the past?? Putting some one that’s never been a judge on the SCOTUS???

BigWyo on May 18, 2009 at 2:07 PM

If memory serves, Earl Warren had no experience as a judge before being nominated as Chief Justice.

JohnGalt23 on May 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Obama’s intrusive meddling with Chrysler and General Motors on behalf of the UAW demonstrates the president’s interest in holding onto the Rust Belt now and in 2012.

Maybe it’s just me, but if I lived in a Rust Belt state I’d be blaming the UAW and Obama for making a bad situation immeasurably worse. And is energy policy is the cherry on top of the ice cream soda.

Buy Danish on May 18, 2009 at 3:10 PM

and his energy policy…

Buy Danish on May 18, 2009 at 3:10 PM

According to Rush, this isn’t about the SCOTUS. It’s about creating some green car initiative.

Daggett on May 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM

That does make more sense than putting her on the list for SCOTUS. She’s got too much baggage. And pardon my ignorance on this question, but don’t you have to be a natural born citizen to sit on the Supreme Court? Isn’t that considered “federal” office?

Dee2008 on May 18, 2009 at 3:21 PM

This is why Granholm is at the White House – it’s to meet with the President of American Motors:

President Barack Obama will announce plans on Tuesday for a national fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standard for automobiles in an effort to give more certainty to car companies as they struggle for survival, industry and administration sources told POLITICO on Monday.

The national emissions policy for autos, which will ramp up to a new standard of about 35 miles per gallon in 2016, will harmonize the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standard and the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse-gas standard.

…Auto executives are flying into Washington from around the world for the White House announcement…California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is expected to attend, the sources said.

Buy Danish on May 18, 2009 at 3:22 PM

If memory serves, Earl Warren had no experience as a judge before being nominated as Chief Justice.

JohnGalt23 on May 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Alrighty then….

I really had no idea, just seems…wrong in some fundamental way….

BigWyo on May 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM

That does make more sense than putting her on the list for SCOTUS. She’s got too much baggage. And pardon my ignorance on this question, but don’t you have to be a natural born citizen to sit on the Supreme Court? Isn’t that considered “federal” office?

Dee2008 on May 18, 2009 at 3:21 PM

I do not believe there is a SCOTUS constitutional requirement with regards to citizenship. I also do not believe there is constitutional requirement that SCOTUS has been a sitting judge, much less an attorney. The Judiciary section is pretty vague.

ladyingray on May 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Simply brilliant post, Karl. However, I would not refer to Toobin as a lapdog, I have too much respect for dogs.

Angry Dumbo on May 18, 2009 at 3:26 PM

How many more ne’er do wells can Obama come up with.. Geitner, Dashcle, Rahmbo, etc, etc, etc, etc… Cheat, incompetent??? You can be on Obamas cabinet

reshas1 on May 18, 2009 at 3:39 PM

I do not believe there is a SCOTUS constitutional requirement with regards to citizenship. I also do not believe there is constitutional requirement that SCOTUS has been a sitting judge, much less an attorney. The Judiciary section is pretty vague.

ladyingray on May 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Wow.

Dee2008 on May 18, 2009 at 3:47 PM

I live in Michigan. Jenny is shit. It might be nice to get her out of here early though…

echosyst on May 18, 2009 at 3:58 PM

I take it back. Gibbsy just hinted that she’s at the W.H. for an “announcement” Barry will make tomorrow.

Buy Danish on May 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee:

“Assuming no serious problems, we should have a good discussion about the role of a judge,” Mr. Sessions said. Asked what kind of candidate could be rejected, he replied that the Senate should not confirm anyone who would take personal views to the bench or who wanted “to promote a political agenda.” “No one is talking about the possibility of defeating any nominee, barring something coming out of left field.”

Mr. Obama’s candidate is certain to declaim, as do all judicial nominees, that he or she will interpret the law and not promote any personal agendas.

“Obviously, we’re going to stand up for our principles,” the aide continued, “but the other side has won this right to choose someone this time.”

Some other aides and one senator other than Mr. Sessions who asked not to be quoted all referred in interviews to the coming confirmation process as an “educational opportunity,” a description that suggests a more modest political goal than attacking or defeating a nominee.

“We’re choosing someone with the power to redefine the Constitution,” he said. “That’s a big deal.”

And while that has always been so, the modern Supreme Court confirmation process first took on the drama of a special political moment with the 1987 battle over President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork….and four years later with Clarence Thomas.

NYT, Neil A. Lewis

The other side has won the right to choose someone this time? No, only to NOMINATE someone. If it were a mere right to choose according to election results, then Bork, Thomas and John Roberts would not have experienced such unbecoming animosity from the losers in opposition to their appointments, Bork not appointed.

We’re choosing someone with the power to redefine the Constitution. No, REVISION is not a literal job description granted by the Constitution to any Supreme Court Justice or the entire Court. Again, if anyone re-defines the Constitution, it must be the entire legislative body of Congress with the POTUS signature making the Amendment law.

GOP LITMUS TEST OF SCOTUS: Does the nominee advocate CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION or any legislation FROM THE BENCH?

Whether by choice or not, be prepared for the OK Corral,
Sen. Sessions, not the belly up possum or head in the sand ostrich or hibernating bear mode.

maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 4:33 PM

As dearly as we Michiganders would want her gone, the prospect of a lifetime appointment to fark-up the entire country is just too much.

CaveatEmpty on May 18, 2009 at 4:43 PM

She’s not as left wing as many of the other names that have been floated.

rokemronnie on May 18, 2009 at 5:30 PM

What does experience as a judge matter. Hasn’t Obama shown that experience is over rated and that any stranger on the street, as long as he/she is of the ‘right’ party (democrap) is more than qualified to hold the highest office and/or the highest court positions of the land?
Hope and Change.
Or the new motto for Granholm, she’ll do to the Supreme Court and the US Constitution what’s she’s done for Michigan.

eaglewingz08 on May 18, 2009 at 5:36 PM

I take it back. Gibbsy just hinted that she’s at the W.H. for an “announcement” Barry will make tomorrow.

Buy Danish on May 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM

You were right the first time.

President Barack Obama will announce plans on Tuesday for a national fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standard for automobiles in an effort to give more certainty to car companies as they struggle for survival, industry and administration sources told POLITICO on Monday.

The Tuesday announcement is tomorrow’s announcement.

Ahnold will be there too.

ladyingray on May 18, 2009 at 5:44 PM

As a Michigander, I can tell you that Jennifer Granholm is not very bright. She’ll be a younger — and far more attractive — version of Ginsburg: She’ll vote the leftist party line on virtually every issue, offering no interpretive intellect or knowledge of stare decisis at all. Like Ginsburg, whatever the dems want, she’ll give it to them, and she won’t have to hear any pesky “legal arguments” in order to render a decision. She’ll be a predictable, reliable, anti-intellectual liberal vote in virtually every case she hears (or doesn’t hear — it won’t matter). The problem is, at Granholm’s age, she’ll be a knee-jerk lefty vote on the court for over 30 years. Oh, and we’ll have to endure listening to the MSM tell us how “brilliant” she is for all of those 30 years — even though we’ll know exactly how she’s going to vote 100% of the time. It’s sad, too, because as a woman, Ginsburg has always been such an intellectual embarrassment, and now there may be two. They’re the judicial version of barefoot and pregnant.

Rational Thought on May 18, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Damn Canadians …

Nominating a Canuck is wrong on so many levels

Stickeehands on May 18, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Moreover, Granholm has had tax problems, though at this juncture that seems more like a prerequisite for Obama than a disqualification.

I’d bet money she’s in.

4shoes on May 18, 2009 at 10:23 PM

Hang on a sec. She has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE..never served as a Judge?!?!?

Has that happened a lot in the past?? Putting some one that’s never been a judge on the SCOTUS???

I know we have a bumbling fool in the White House but…???

BigWyo on May 18, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Yes, we have many times appointed justices without judicial experience and it’s really good thing to do!

Law schools teach a certain ideology, but their ideology gets far from both the ideas of the masses and from reality. While we should have some people on the SC who come from that ideology, we need other people who take other approaches.

For the partisan bean counters, I do strongly think that this approach does favor conservative interest, as law schools tend to be leftist. But I’m not so sure that this is partisan idea as much as a democratic ideal. The faculty of any profession can go off on the weirdest tangents and shouldn’t be trusted.

thuja on May 18, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Between Granholm and Obama the only thing left in Michigan will be prisons and golf courses.

Hazmat on May 19, 2009 at 10:50 AM