Here: NNABA Letter to Obama Re Native on SCt April 2010
Supreme Court nominations
Commentary on Possible Obama SCT Nominees
Now that the election is over, the commentaries on who President Obama might nominate to serve on the Supreme Court have begun in earnest. The crop of leading names, all of which is crazily speculative, are very exciting in general. There may be more Indian law judicial and practitioner experience in this group than ever before.
Here are a list of the more prominent names, taken from the ABA Journal’s list on page 63 of its November 2008 issue, and their import for Indian Country based on their experience in Indian law cases:
1. Judge Diane Wood
Judge Wood sits on the Seventh Circuit, which doesn’t hear very many Indian law cases, but she does have a significant track record.
She wrote the majority opinion in U.S. v. Long (2003), in which the court upheld the Duro fix prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Lara. In Wisconsin v. EPA (2001), she wrote the majority opinion, in which the court held that the EPA’s decision to grant treatment-as-state status to the Sokaogon Chippewa Community was reasonable. In Sokaogon Chippewa Community v. Babbitt (2000), she wrote the majority opinion in a case the court held it was reasonable for the district court to reject the St. Croix Chippewa Tribe’s motion to intervene in a gaming case involving three other Wisconsin tribes. In Thomas v. United States (1999), she wrote the majority opinion holding that the LCO Chippewa Band’s tribal council was not a necessary party to a claim challenging the outcome of a Secretarial election. Most recently, in Burgess v. Walters (2006), she wrote the majority opinion upholding the State of Wisconsin’s action in committing an Indian based on the PL280 criminal/prohibitory — civil/regulatory analysis.
Without a doubt, Judge Wood’s opinions in her several Indian law cases demonstrate that she is very respectful to Indian tribes and to tribal sovereignty. Wisconsin and Long could have easily gone the other way. Even in the cases she were rules against tribal interests, she does not denigrate Indians and tribes in any way.
2. Seth Waxman
Mr. Waxman is another interesting choice for Indian Country. He has more experience in litigating federal Indian law cases than any of the others mentioned for a nomination. As the US Solicitor General under President Clinton, his name is appended to dozens of Indian law cases (e.g., Minnesota v. Mille Lacs, Idaho v. United States, other cases from 1997-2001), but he never argued an Indian law case before the Court during that time. However, since he’s been back in private practice he’s worked at least three Indian law cases — City of Roseville v. Norton (D.C. Cir. 2003), San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 2007), and MichGO v. Kempthorne (D.C. Cir. 2008), all on behalf of the tribes involved in those cases.
His experience in Indian law is outstanding and, like Judge Wood, might help the Court see Indian law in a new light.
Jeffrey Rosen on a “Judicial Apocalypse” if McCain Elected
From the New Republic:
During every presidential campaign for the last two decades, liberals have predicted an apocalypse in the Supreme Court. In their dire visions, as many as four justices are always about to retire, meaning that a Republican victory would turn the court radically to the right and lead to the certain overturning of Roe v. Wade.
In each of the past three elections, of course, these hyperbolic predictions have turned out to be wrong. Since 1996, Roe has been supported by a comfortable 6-3 majority, and the Court, controlled by two relatively moderate swing justices, Sandra Day O’Connor and now Anthony Kennedy, has remained fairly centrist. All of this had led some Court-watchers, including me, to conclude that the stakes for the Court in most presidential elections are less dire than many liberals fear.
Not this time. This year, for the first time since the New Deal era, a single election really does have the power to transform the Court–at the very moment that voters, rightly concerned about the tanking economy and the war in Iraq, are looking the other way. Given the fact that the older justices are liberal rather than conservative–and that the oldest, John Paul Stevens, is 88–it’s hard to deny that nominations by John McCain would change the Court far more dramatically than those by Barack Obama. An Obama victory would maintain the current balance of the Court, while a McCain Court could create a solid conservative majority.
What’s at stake is not only Roe v. Wade, but issues directly tied to the current concerns of the public: among them, Congress’s power to regulate the economy as well as limits on the president’s power to act unilaterally in the war on terrorism. Although McCain claims to favor justices who will defer to the political branches, the most likely Republican nominees are hardly consistent advocates of judicial deference. Voters who are hoping McCain will nominate relatively moderate judicial mavericks should think again.
Turtle Talk 