By Paul Losch
About this blog: I was a "corporate brat" growing up and lived in different parts of the country, ending in Houston, Texas for high school. After attending college at UC Davis, and getting an MBA at Harvard, I embarked on a marketing career, mai... (More)
About this blog: I was a "corporate brat" growing up and lived in different parts of the country, ending in Houston, Texas for high school. After attending college at UC Davis, and getting an MBA at Harvard, I embarked on a marketing career, mainly in the Bay Area with different companies. My former wife went back to medical school after we had been married a few years, and we moved into married student housing at Stanford, had our two now adult children while she was a medical student, and moved into Palo Alto when she started her Residency. Been here ever since. As my kids were going through the Palo Alto schools, I was actively involved in their activities, most notably head umpire for Palo Alto Little League and 9 years as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, among other activities. My kids both are grown, my son teaches 5th grade locally, and my daughter, fluent in Mandarin, is working in China. I sold the business I owned and ran for 8 years in 2012, worked on the Obama campaign, and am consulting for non-profit organizations, which gives me a nice, flexible schedule. Lots of stamps in my passport, and for fun, I like live performances &emdash; theater and music - and of course the Giants! (Hide)
View all posts from Paul Losch
Next Supreme Court Nominee
Uploaded: Apr 20, 2010
I have a process observation and a substantive observation.
Process: it appears that Obama is trying to work with the Senate leadership and the Judiciary Committee leadership, according to news article that have come out of late.
I contrast this with W's buffoon announcement that he would nominate Harriett Meyers, a Texas crony of his. Even the GOP Senators pushed back on that one, and rightly so.
Give Obama credit for using a more deliberative process for nominating someone to this great deliberative body, the US Supreme Court.
Substantive observation: when is it qualifications and when is it legal opinions? Nominating judges at all levels is part of the political process, make no mistake about that.
When someone is viewed as qualified for such a nomination, should a Senator vote up or down based on prior opinions a nominee has had?
What about those who have been nominated for a position on a court who has a track record outside the Court, such as academia or political elective office?
I view the current US Senate, especially on the GOP side, as looking to play "Gotcha" on nominees for the Supreme Court and for other judicial levels.
We need good, no--excellent--people on all the benches. I cannot tell right now if the Senate is able to do that.
What is it worth to you?
Post a comment
Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.