Of the main contenders for Justice Stevens’s Supreme Court seat, Diane Wood sounds great to me. Here’s what AlterNet says about her:
Diane Wood is 59 and has been a federal appeals judge “since Clinton tapped her in 1995 after she served in the Justice Department for three years.” Wood’s writings and opinions show that she believes in a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, is markedly a supporter of abortion rights, and would like to see the phrase “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Yes, Obama should (nominate her).
She’s a great candidate, but I wish she were 10 years younger. Obama needs to shape a 30 – 40 year court here. Enjoy your commentary!
I’m really liking her decisions in these cases:
National Organization for Women v. Scheidler
Goldwasser v. Ameritech Corp
Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
Solid Waste Agency v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Though I do have to look a bit deeper into Bloch v. Frischholz and St. John’s United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago. Also, another Protestant female on the court wouldn’t hurt considering that it’s currently mostly Jewish and Catholic men.
These three examples of Wood’s jurisprudence consist of proposed uses of a state power to upset democratic decision (i.e., striking down as unconstitutional certain democratically-supported laws or their enforcement).
Now I’m not a worshiper of democracy by any means.
But I’m curious Santi, how is that you justify forcing people to recognise rights in others that the former do not wish to recognise? Upon what basis is your politico-moral decision made? How is that I may not force you to recognise the rights of God (whom one may debate does not exist of course) or of an unborn child (who certainly does exist)? Yet you may force me to recognise and respect the rights of sodomites and un-mothers?
Incidentally, I (and have commanded my wife and children accordingly) will not recite the so-called Pledge of Allegiance. It must remove the words “one nation,” and “indivisible,” before I would ever reconsider.
Perhaps, you would replace “under God” with “under Man?”