Deval Patrick

It’s not easy being a governor or state legislator these days. With states facing deep budget deficits, state lawmakers around the nation are working to close their budget gaps by tackling one of the biggest costs they face: government employee compensation. As we saw in Wisconsin (and to a lesser extent in Ohio), Republican lawmakers who take on the government employee union lobby can expect an all-out backlash from it.

But it’s not just Republicans. Some Democratic state elected officials are also trying to close their own states’ budget gaps. While public employee unions have not been as vocal in their opposition to Blue Team-proposed cuts, Democrats depend on campaign support from unions in a way Republicans do not, so alienating those unions could prove costly politically — at least in theory.

That’s difficult enough, but now it appears that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat, recently had to deal with the Obama administration on this issue. The Boston Globe reported this week:

The White House took the unusual step this spring of calling Governor Deval Patrick to discuss his plan to curb the collective bargaining rights of public employees, an indication that the Obama administration may have been concerned about the potential for national political fallout.

[click to continue…]

Liberal Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring. On social issues, this makes little difference: whoever replaces him will satisfy liberal litmus tests, like supporting racial preferences and partial-birth abortion the way Souter did.

But on economics, where Souter was more moderate, it will matter a lot: Souter was willing to occasionally overturn excessive punitive damage awards, and overturn state regulations that were preempted by federal law (like in Watters v. Wachovia (2007), where I filed a brief on behalf of economists and law professors). Some of his potential replacements, like Judge Sonia Sotomayor and especially Deval Patrick, will be less likely to do that.

Business will miss Souter, even though social conservatives won’t. Obama is more likely to nominate a justice hostile to taxpayers, business, and property owners, since he has expressed regret that the Supreme Court “didn’t break free” from legal constraints in order to bring about “redistribution of wealth” during the Warren Court.

Souter’s colleagues will probably miss the unassuming Souter, who did not (unlike some past justices, such as William O. Douglas) lord it over other people. He once lived in a waterfront apartment building in Washington, D.C.’s Southwest quarter right near my wife. We would sometimes see Souter quietly doing his own laundry. Unlike many limousine liberals, who live in wealthy, lily-white, gated communities (even as they advocate forced busing of working-class students between predominantly-black schools and predominantly-white schools), Souter chose to live in a middle-class, racially-mixed community.

A potential replacement for Justice Souter is Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a vociferous advocate of censorship and racial quotas who helped spawn the mortgage crisis while serving in the Justice Department.

Another candidate for Souter’s seat is “Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor,” who also avidly supports racial quotas. Sotomayor’s “shenanigans in trying to bury the firefighters’ claims in Ricci v. DeStefano triggered an extraordinary dissent by fellow Clinton appointee José Cabranes (and the Supreme Court’s pending review of the ruling).”

Yet another is the tax-and-spend former governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, a big fan of racial preferences (forbidden by her state’s constitution) who helped drive her state’s economy into the ditch.

Two other candidates also are mentioned who may not be wacky enough to be considered by Obama, even though they both satisfy liberal litmus tests on abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights, and are both women (the conventional wisdom is that Obama will pick a woman, perhaps a Hispanic woman, as the next Supreme Court justice). Those two candidates are Seventh Circuit judge Diane Wood and Ninth Circuit judge Kim Wardlaw, a Hispanic. Neither of these two judges is unusually anti-business, or unusually prone to the “redistribution of wealth” Obama has applauded.

CNN’s political ticker also lists the veteran moderate Judge Jose Cabranes. I don’t think Obama is in any mood to pick a moderate male judge, even a well-respected Hispanic like Cabranes who is well-liked by his home-state Democratic senators, Dodd and Lieberman, and who would easily sail through the Senate. Cabranes may be pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-voting-rights, but he is also anti-crime and pro-free-speech. And he was unwilling to use judicial shenanigans to bury the reverse-discrimination claim in the Ricci case, as Judge Sotomayor did (although it’s worth noting that even the Obama Justice Department reluctantly agreed with Cabranes in that case, urging the Supreme Court to remand the case back down to the lower courts for a proper reconsideration, rather than totally avoiding the issues raised by the aggrieved white employees).

President-elect Obama is poised to appoint Eric Holder as the next attorney general. I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, Holder blatantly lied during the Elian Gonzalez fiasco. And he schemed to bring about the infamous pardon by Bill Clinton of fugitive financier Marc Rich, to the dismay of federal prosecutors and disgust of even hard-core Clinton supporters and liberal lawmakers.

On the other hand, his being appointed reduces the likelihood that a wacko like Charles Ogletree, the Harvard law professor described in the press as Obama’s top advisor on criminal justice and racial issues, will be appointed attorney general. We wrote earlier about Ogletree’s claims that America is a racist country that brought on 9/11 through its stupidity.

Holder’s appointment would also forestall the appointment of Deval Patrick, an advocate of racial quotas, baseless lawsuits, and censorship, who some had predicted would be the next attorney general.

However, the Washington Post and Boston Globe have predicted that Patrick may be appointed by Obama to the Supreme Court. He could do far more harm on the Supreme Court than as attorney general.

Earlier, I wrote about Obama’s possible appointment of Charles Ogletree, who believes that America is a racist country that is to blame for 9/11, to be assistant attorney general in charge of the Civil Rights Division.

Some commentators, like the award-winning journalist A. Barton Hinkle, wondered whether I wasn’t overstating Ogletree’s links to Obama (by calling him Obama’s “top adviser” on race), given his out-of-the-mainstream views.

Actually, it seems that I understated Ogletree’s links to Obama and possible role in the Obama Administration. As legal commentator Walter Olson notes, Ogletree is now being described as a possible Attorney General — not just Assistant Attorney General — by CBS News and Newsweek.

Moreover, Newsweek describes Ogletree as Obama’s “top criminal-justice adviser,” not just his adviser on race issues. (Neither CBS nor Newsweek discusses Ogletree’s well-documented controversial positions, such as claiming that Obama’s election was only possible because he is part white, and his long-time advocacy of race-based reparations. Among liberal journalists, unlike the general public, these positions may not seem out-of-the-ordinary. But Ogletree’s left-wing positions have attracted a great deal of criticism on talk radio, from broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh, which might help to explain why liberal lawmakers want to shut down talk radio using the misleadingly-named “Fairness Doctrine“).

[click to continue…]

From the polls, it looks like Obama will be our next president.  So who will he be appointing to high office? 

Deval Patrick, who avidly backed censorship and racial quotas, has been suggested for the Supreme Court.  Ed Whelan looks at his left-wing record of pushing racial quotas, which drew criticism from even from liberal judges and liberal Senators like Carol Moseley Braun, and suggests that other choices would be better. 

Patrick, who has also been suggested as a potential attorney general, has claimed that speech opposing halfway houses for substance abusers (defined as disabled by the Fair Housing Act) is as unprotected as using “baseball bats” to deny them access to housing.

Obama aides have suggested Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for Secretary of Interior.  But legal commentator Walter Olson calls him “America’s most irresponsible public figure” for scaring parents into not getting their children vaccinated for diseases, and labeling those who disagree with him as traitors.  Even the liberal publication Slate describes Kennedy as “too partisan and kind of a nut.”

The ABA Journal predicts that Charles Ogletree will be in charge of civil rights at the Justice Department, despite his controversial remarks blaming America for 9/11 and calling America a racist country.

Let’s hope better-qualified people actually end up getting these jobs.

(McCain has his own truly stupid advisers, like Martin Feldstein, whose proposal to buy up all the bad loans in America has been aptly described as “the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard,” and cost him the support of the editor of the Arlington Sun-Gazette, one of the few moderate or conservative papers in the Washington, D.C. area.  But McCain’s advisers now appear to be moot).

In contrast to the presidential race, many Congressional races will apparently be cliffhangers this year, as previously “safe” Republican seats have become fiercely competitive.  The Democratic majority in the Congress will expand, perhaps including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. 

From the latest polls, many Congressional races look like they are neck-and-neck and will be decided by a tiny margin.