news-record.com

BLOGS

Off the Record

Obama is making judicial choices, not political picks

I'm happy to have been wrong about whom President Obama would nominate for a federal judgeship in the Middle District of North Carolina.

I predicted last July that Obama would choose Anita Earls over Catherine Eagles, despite Eagles' 16 years' experience as a Superior Court judge in Guilford County.

Earls, executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice in Durham, spent 20 years as a civil rights attorney "working on issues of structural racism, voting rights and community empowerment," the organization's Web site said.

She was a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1998-2000, when current U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was deputy attorney general.

She was an early supporter of Obama's presidential campaign and an Obama delegate to the 2008 Democrat National Convention.

Finally, she is African American.

To me, that added up to the perfect Obama judicial choice.

Instead, the president picked Eagles.

Eagles is a respected judge whose record puts her comfortably within the North Carolina judicial mainstream -- not identifiably liberal or conservative, just a judge who applies the law firmly and fairly.

Obama made a judicial choice, not a political one.

Now, let me give Earls her due. As a Yale law grad, she's no slouch. She was one of three nominees recommended to Sen. Kay Hagan by an independent panel headed by former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Burley Mitchell. And, as a member of the State Board of Elections, she acquitted herself well during last fall's Mike Easley hearings.

Still, she's clearly a liberal.

As such, she may have encountered some resistance during Senate confirmation proceedings, which may be something the White House considered.

Eagles should have no problem, except for the slow pace of proceedings in the Senate. I would expect Republican Sen. Richard Burr to join with Democrat Hagan, a friend of Eagles, in supporting the nominee.

Burr enthusiastically backed the two other North Carolina judicial nominations Obama has made -- Albert Diaz and Jim Wynn for seats on the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Both have been approved by the Judiciary Committee and await a final confirmation vote on the Senate floor. Both are highly qualified judges with solid experience on the bench. Neither could be viewed as a political choice.

Diaz is Hispanic, Wynn is black, and now Obama has added a white woman. You could say he's making affirmative action selections.

Fine. More minorities and women are needed on the federal bench. The point is all are excellent picks based on their proven records as judges.

In his North Carolina selections, Obama is not trying to pack the federal courts with liberal activists.

I admit I'm surprised, but impressed.

Update, 4:30 p.m.: Sen. Burr issues a positive statement about Eagles:

“The President has nominated a well-qualified candidate for the Middle District in Judge Eagles, and I look forward to working with her as she goes through the confirmation process.”

Permalink

Posted by Doug Clark on Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 8:36 am

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

tonymo

March 11, 2010 - 9:22 am EST

I hope you are right. One can never tell with judges. Earl Warren, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy were named by Republicans, and another tried to name Harriet Miers!

On the other side of the coin,Obama has nominated to the Ninth Circus Appeals Court a man with 3 years experience (a minimun of 12 is usually the norm for such a post), and who has, I have read, written that John Roberts ia "not qualified" because he believes in property rights and Capitalism.

With the latest land grabs in the West via Executive Order it's not completely unimaginable. From Fox News last night. "How much land is owned in America by the federal government. They own nearly 650 million acres of land — almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States."

"Nevada is almost 90 percent federally owned land. Alaska is nearly three quarters federally owned."

We all know how much land use is restricted when it is owned by the government! The ninth Circus nominee will be ruling on such matters right in an area that be the most problematic for propenents of private property.

Doug

March 11, 2010 - 10:15 am EST

Yes, Sen. Obama voted against Roberts' confirmation. In Greensboro Monday, Sandra Day O'Connor said opposition to Roberts was pure politics. She's right. That's why it's a pleasant surprise that Obama is taking a different position in regard to these judicial appointments -- at least as far as the three North Carolina nominations.

Federal land grab? Are you talking about Teddy Roosevelt? He grabbed the Grand Canyon from mining interests, the commie!

Connie Mack Jr

March 11, 2010 - 10:33 am EST

Federal land grab? Are you talking about Teddy Roosevelt? He grabbed the Grand Canyon from mining interests, the commie* Doug

And to top that! He grab the Bush of Panana and made a country out of it to really make him Nazi of the century...

tonymo

March 11, 2010 - 11:29 am EST

Teddy Roosevelt was a big government "Progressive" in the mould of FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and the current guy. I believe the current guy is more dangerous because his philosophical brethern control the newsrooms, the schools, universities, and, for now, the congress.

What do you think Obama meant when he said just prior to the election, "In five days we begin the fundamental transformation of the United States of America!" Please give us your "benign" reading of that statement. What "fundamental" changes did we require?

Was it taking over banks, changing bankruptcy laws, taking over student loans, ridding the country of private insurers, putting even more land off limits to development, hunting, fishing, farming, grazing, controlling auto companies, using executive orders to bypass congress, giving Miranda rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield, then bringin g them here and providing them with attorneys? Those are certainly "fundamental" transformations, but I'm doubtful it's made us a better place!

Doug

March 11, 2010 - 11:48 am EST

Maybe you would prefer that the Grand Canyon had been strip-mined rather than grabbed by a preservationist president.

Whatever Obama meant by fundamentally changing this country, he will not fundamentally change our courts with the appointment of mainstream judges like Eagles, Wynn and Diaz.

tonymo

March 11, 2010 - 12:02 pm EST

I believe that there are a great number of reasonable options for the use of land between "strip mining" and being scarfed up by an ever growing, ever more intrusive government of the kind Obama favors!

Wow, are you going to be in for a huge, unpleasant surprise one day. Of course if this health care debacle hasn't opened your eyes than nothing will.

Do you remember, "it's the economy stupid?" Why is this administration and congress not focusing on the economy? All recent polling shows the economy and jobs to be, by far, the top priorties of the people.

But the president and the congress are obsessed, to their own detriment" on health care. Why? Because fixing the economy doesn't get you control over 16-20% of that economy. Remember another famous saying, "never let a crisis go to waste!"

You have eyes but you can't see!

Doug

March 11, 2010 - 12:12 pm EST

Tony, you're having a hard time seeing what I'm saying here, and it's not anything about Obama's health-care plan or handling of the economy.

It's about his appointments of mainstream, experienced, well-qualified North Carolina judges.

So, are you OK or not with the Grand Canyon having been preserved as a national park?

Andrew Clark

March 11, 2010 - 12:13 pm EST

Well, objections to Roberts have proven to be correct. He is highly partisan and, for people who like the term, an extreme judicial activist. He's moved the court pretty far to the right, and the fact that he has so many controversial 5-4 rulings point to his critics being right. He is definitely not the moderate he presented himself as.

tonymo

March 11, 2010 - 4:02 pm EST

Yeah Andy, what we need is more non-partisan, middle of the road justices like Ruthie B Ginsburg, J.P Stevens, Stevie Breyer, and Dave Souter! You are blinded by your left wing ideology. Do you not honestly understand that this is, and has long been a center-right country, not a left-wing Utopian "paradise."

A recent Gallup (one of yours!) poll, as it has for years now, told us that 40% self identified as conservative, 36% as Independent, and a mere 21% of you out of the mainstream locoweeds admitted to being liberals! So why is it that you think you should run the country?

Your warped worldview is brought about by the fact that most newsrooms, editorial boards, school boards, college and university faculties are littered from that small 21% of the country, which distorts the reality of this country!

It is almost unimaginable to those like me who grew up in this greatest, even with our faults, despite the many comments to the contrary by our "collectivist" president, country in the history of the world. We also grew up at time when most people, liberal, or conservative, loved this country, and were willing to die for the freedom, and liberty that we HAD.

There are cemeteries here, and around the world filled with the remains of hundreds of thousands of American military personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and so that other folks in other countries could experience the same freedoms as we do. Yes, we had a few people like you, I spent many hours as a R.O.T.C. cadet doing battle with the Communist inspired SDS Amrica haters in the Student Union.

Unfortunately many of those America haters are now embedded in our government, all the way to the top. If you want a glimpse of your future just look to Greece, The UK, Spain, Italy, and France!
These are the kind of people that people like you support. The John Roberts' are the only barrier between us and the "Barbarians at the Gate!" who want to destroy everything for which all of those people gave their lives. "I hope he fails!"

We actually have "representatives" now saying the should simply "DEEM" that the House pass the senate health care bill, and have the president sign it into law despite the widespread aversion to ths disaster by most Americans! This is the truly twisted mentality of your side! If this continues you will one day wake up in a very bad place!

Doug

March 11, 2010 - 4:15 pm EST

I'll have to disagree with you both. Roberts wasn't presented as a moderate. He did have the highest ABA rating, a strong prior record and a commitment to uphold the law, which he's done.

As for Tony, what the heck are you saying? Americans elected a liberal president, but because 40 percent of Americans say they're conservative, he's supposed to govern as a conservative? That's not how it works. You need to rally your 40 percent, find 10-plus percent more, and elect your own president next time.

Doug Johnson

March 12, 2010 - 5:26 am EST

I rather read about Obama plan to outlaw fishing!
Now if you think the little socialist does not have his act together on this, you are in fantasyland.
If he had his Obama Care, as well thought out as his ban fishing plan, you now be standing in line for Obama Care.

I have some money, I will bet, that the N&R will fall for this this hook, line and sinker.

Keep up the good work Tonymo, their still many of us who put America first.

Doug

March 12, 2010 - 8:24 am EST

Doug J, why don't you check your facts on the fishing story? I think you fell for one hook, line and sinker.

http://www.wytv.com/mostpopular/story/Fishing-Ban-Story-False/bscdp-A9gE...

jonfire

March 12, 2010 - 7:37 pm EST

Doug,
I will accept your judgement "prima facie" as to the qualifications of the three judges appointed, but you must think your readers fools to presume to tell us that the appointments were not political. All appointments are political whether partisan or not. By the way, what is "structural racism"? Is that like neighborhoods that are mostly White, Black, or Hispanic?