*Extremist Appointments: *Last July <http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2008_2.html#jrm6270>, I predicted that Obama would would govern as close to his leftist beliefs as "he can get away with". So far, I think that has been a reasonably accurate prediction. (One possible exception: His shift on Iraq. But even that is consistent with some of his stands when the war was going well.)
In the same post, I predicted that he would try achieve some of his leftist goals by appointments to the Supreme Court. (For example, same-sex marriage.) Later, I broadened that to say that he would try to achieve some of his more extremist goals through appointments generally. Already we have a number of appointments that support the argument I made last July, and since. Attorney General Eric Holder, of course, but he is not the only example and is far from the most extreme. Here's a brief list: Harold Koh <http://www.nypost.com/seven/03302009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_most_perilous_legal_pick_161961.htm?page=0>, nominated to be the State Department's legal advisor, and thought to be a prime Obama candidate for the Supreme Court <http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmNiMDk2NDcyZWI2MTY2NzVjYzk2YjIxNDc1YWE0YWU=>. Judges should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq. Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh. . . . The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes. So much for our Constitution. Tom Perez <http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/113025.php>, nominated to head the civil rights division at the Justice Department. In 2006, Perez wrote a law review article for the University of Maryland's Journal of Health Care Law and Policy, in which he argued for explicit race-conscious admissions policies for medical school. He cited a handful of studies purported to show that minority doctors are more likely to provide medical care to under-served poor minority populations than white physicians. He then leapt to the conclusion that the best way to improve access to medical care for underserved populations was to insist that medical schools use race or ethnicity in choosing which students to admit. In effect, Perez appears to be arguing for a form of medical apartheid in which minority patients should be served by minority doctors under the presumption that both groups benefit from this practice. The argument is both insulting and dangerous. Perez was Obama's second choice for this position, after his first choice, Thomas Saenz, was too radical even for a Democratic Senate. Dawn Johnsen <http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzcyODUwNjAwNzg3YTYyZjBiOWU3ZTQwZmYzOGIwOGQ=>, nominated to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Her bizarre equation of pregnancy and slavery was not an off-the-cuff remark. It was her considered position in a 1989 brief filed in the Supreme Court. At the time, she was legal director of NARAL (then the National Abortion Rights Action League, since renamed NARAL Pro-Choice America). The case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, involved a Missouri law that did not ban abortion but restricted the use of state funds and resources for abortions. It's an obvious distinction, but one without a difference --- at least according to Johnsen. Any restriction that makes abortion less accessible is, in her view, tantamount to "involuntary servitude" because it "requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest [in the life of the unborn]." In effect, a woman "is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends." Such "forced pregnancy," she contends, violates the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery. . . . For Johnsen, no impediment to abortion-on-demand passes muster: She opposes 24-hour waiting periods, parental-consent requirements for minors, and laws against partial-birth abortion. . . . Johnsen's other /bête noire/ is national security --- at least to the extent it involves detaining terrorists and enemy combatants as military opponents rather trying them as civilian criminal defendants. You probably feel safer already, just reading that. David Hamilton <http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzcyODUwNjAwNzg3YTYyZjBiOWU3ZTQwZmYzOGIwOGQ=>, nominated to the 7th Circuit Court. In an article headlined "Moderate Is Said to Be Pick for Court," the New York Times reports that President Obama's first nominee to a federal appellate court seat is expected to be David F. Hamilton. Hamilton, appointed by President Clinton to a district judgeship in Indiana in 1994 (despite the ABA's "not qualified" rating), is expected to be named to the Seventh Circuit. It's far from clear what justifies the article's characterization of Hamilton as a "moderate" (or, as the article oddly puts it, as "represent[ing] some of his state's traditionally moderate strain"---how does one represent some of a strain?). Was it perhaps Hamilton's service as vice president for litigation, and as a board member, of the Indiana branch of the ACLU? Or maybe Hamilton's extraordinary seven-year-long series of rulings obstructing Indiana's implementation of its law providing for informed consent on abortion? Judging by his record, Hamilton, like Obama, is a pro-abortion extremist. Some will wonder whether Obama should be spending more time finding help for Secretary Geithner at Treasury, rather than finding jobs for leftwing lawyers. But that's not the important point. Obama is choosing appointees who are extremist by the standards of most voters --- just as I predicted he would. He hopes those appointees will change our nation's legal system, radically, without letting voters blame him for those changes. Expect much more stealth extremism from Obama in the months and years to come. (The contrast with President Bush on judicial appointments is instructive. When he came into office in 2001, he reached out to Democrats by re-nominating several Clinton judicial nominees, who had not been confirmed by the Republican Senate. To the best of my knowledge, President Obama has not returned that favor.) - 7:04 AM, 31 March 2009 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
