WASHINGTON – Too progressive. Too moderate. Bad for workers.
Whispers and background chatter about top contenders for the Supreme Court grow as President Biden nominates a candidate to replace Judge Stephen Breer, who is resigning. And while the president is committed to contributing, the White House insists he will not be subjected to sniping.
“He is going to choose a highly qualified black woman to run for the Supreme Court, and he has a number of potential candidates who are very happy with him,” said White House spokesman Jen Psaki.
There is a long history of lobbying campaigns for and against Supreme Court candidates, the first ones sometimes starting with those trying to catch the ear of presidential advisers to praise the merits of a potential candidate.
In one well-known example, Ruth Bader’s husband Ginzburg, Marty, is widely credited with massive behind-the-scenes efforts to bring his wife to court.
“Yes, he was the head of my election campaign,” the late judge later said of her husband.
Advocacy groups, legal groups, academics and legislators are also involved. Today, everyone on Twitter can too.
Biden, who is expected to make his choice this month, has vowed to nominate a black woman. This alone has drawn criticism from some Conservatives, who say it is unfair to other qualified judges by narrowing their choices. The Conservative Growth Club, which strongly supported the nomination of Amy Connie Barrett by President Donald Trump, is running an ad highlighting Spanish-speaking judges who will not be on the list, and claims Biden has cut back on judges. the field is racist.
The Supreme Court for two centuries consisted of white people. There has never been a black woman named in court. Judge Sonia Satamayor is the first Latin American. Also on the court were never Asians, Indians or Pacific Islanders.
In making the decision, Biden asked MPs and legal groups for contributions. On Wednesday, the White House sent out a photo in which former Senator Doug Jones, head of Biden’s nomination team, “calls senators from both parties at work.”
But the president, who has participated in numerous nominations to the Supreme Court for decades as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee and vice president, “will not be subjected to public campaigns, public sniping or lobbying efforts,” Psaki said.
The three main contenders for the post are Federal Court of Appeals Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51, California Supreme Court Justice Leandra Kruger, 45, and U.S. District Court Judge J.W. Michelle Childs, 55 years old.
Each finalist has a long set of conscientious and powerful fans as well as some critics.
Jackson, who is considered a favorite, advertised by leading civil rights attorneys and bar associations. Some also criticized her as potentially too progressive. A former federal judge wrote to the president to tell him that Jackson’s decision on the lawsuit involving Lockheed Martin and Black workers was unfair to the workers.
Kruger would be the first person for more than 40 years move from state court to supreme court. High-level lawyers and at least one former Attorney General praised her. Some of her critics say she is too tolerant of Democrats.
Previously, children specialized in labor law she left private practice to work in the South Carolina Department of Labor. She has strong support in Majority Whip Jim Clayburn, DS.C., and South Carolina Republican Senators Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham have also expressed her support.
Childs has captured the largest audience, sparking criticism from work collectives for her work on employment, as well as from others who say she is too moderate to take Breyer’s place.
Our revolution, an organization of progressive political action created after the presidential campaign of Senator Vermont Bernie Sanders in 2016, finds its potential nomination very problematic.
CEO Joseph Givargese called “very concerned” that Clayburn and others were pushing for Childs, given Biden’s pro-union stance.
“Workers do not need another anti-labor justice that actively opposes the same labor protection that this administration is working on to maintain and expand,” Givarges said this week. “It would be pointless to nominate a judge who destroys trade unions to the country’s highest court.”
Her work with Nexsen Pruet Jacobs & Pollard in Colombia, SC, where she practiced from 1992 to 2000, is questionable. The left-wing publication The American Prospect called her a management lawyer and pointed to criticism of the firm. a union support bill that supported the White House. And they highlighted her work to protect companies from claims of discrimination based on race, gender and pregnancy.
But she also received approval from some working groups, including the South Carolina branch of the AFL-CIO. Earlier this month, President Charles Brave Jr. said in a letter to Biden that Childs would “represent us all well”.
Childs was recruited from her firm to work in the Department of Labor, Licensing and State Regulation, overseeing workplace safety. She was later appointed to the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission, which is tasked with reviewing complaints from both public and private employees.
Anne Mickle, a lawyer who served on the commission for six years before Childs held office, said Childs was looking for lawyers for the claimants because she had a reputation for “intellectual, intuitive, pragmatic.”
Mickle said that if people really understood Childs’ work in the commission, “they would knock on the door to get to the Supreme Court.”
___ Kinard reported from Colombia, SC
Copyright 2022 . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed without permission.