As the de facto left-wing short-list candidate for Justice Stevens’ seat on the Supreme Court, Diane Wood has already drawn lots of ire on the right for her supposedly radical views, especially on abortion. Several articles this week make a strong case for Judge Wood– nothing that would persuade right-wingers, of course, but it’s good to see these articulate defenses.
On Monday, Glenn Greenwald wrote a lengthy piece on Judge Wood’s record, calling her “a superior alternative” for the seat. He starts with the following analogy, calling attention to the fact that Judge Wood is not actually as far left as she’s been made out to be:
“If one were to analogize the search for Justice Stevens’ replacement to the recently concluded health care debate, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood would be the public option. Just as the truly left-wing health care approach (a single-payer system) was eliminated from consideration before the process even began, so, too, have the truly left-wing candidates to replace Justice Stevens (Pam Karlan, Harold Koh) been ruled out as “not viable.” As a result, the moderate-progressive compromises (i.e., the public option for health care and Diane Wood for Stevens’ replacement) are falsely depicted as some sort of liberal extremism, merely because they’re the least conservative options allowed to be considered. Contrary to how she’s now being cast, Judge Wood is a very cautious and law-based jurist who resides far from the furthest left end of the mainstream judicial spectrum.”
At the same time, Greenwald argues that Judge Wood would be a strong, progressive choice, “a truly ideal replacement” for Justice Stevens. This article is worth the long read– Greenwald describes Wood’s early warnings about the threats to the rule of law and the Constitution posed by the war on terror; discusses her “extraordinary ability to attract conservative support for her legal approach”; and outlines the similarities between her judicial approach and that of Justice Stevens. He also compares her briefly to one of the other front-runners, current Soliciter General Elena Kagan.
On Wednesday, Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote in the NYT on Wood as well– “Judicial Bouts Reveal Powers of Persuasion.”This one details her relationship with conservative 7th Circuit Judges Posner and Easterbook (friendly off the bench– Posner even officiated at Wood’s wedding; “a regular three-way legal boxing match” on the bench), and highlights several cases in which she was able to change the minds of her fellow justices.
Scott Lemieux chimes in with more here, writing that “Judge Wood would bring both sterling credentials and the judicial philosophy that represents the best of liberal constitutional thought to the bench.”
And for more on Judge Wood’s abortion jurisprudence, Emily Bazelon had a thoughtful examination in Slate last week, arguing that Wood’s record is not as extreme as it’s been made out to be. As a pro-choicer, I actually like the fact that Wood has a clear record in support of abortion rights, and it seems absurd that this alone should disqualify her from consideration. Greenwald, Stolberg, and Lemieux make great cases for the other reasons we on the left should support her as a potential nominee, and while I was inclined to like her already, I’m all the more impressed with her now.
Recent Comments