Obama's Coastal Drilling Plan
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Igor Volsky, and Alex Seitz-Wald
President Obama has made comprehensive energy reform a key issue of his presidency, with massive investments in clean energy, initial efforts to confront climate change, and a commitment to "ending our addiction to foreign oil." Our nation's dependence on oil -- the United States consumes over 20 percent of world production -- causes 10,000 deaths a year from air pollution, acidifies the oceans, and disrupts our climate, while sending billions of dollars to unfriendly regimes. Yesterday, Obama announced a sweeping new offshore drilling policy, opening "vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling" for the first time in 25 years. This plan would also restore the ban on drilling in Alaska's Bristol Bay, the West Coast, and the East Coast north of Delaware, which Congress lifted in 2008 after former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich's "Drill Here, Drill Now" campaign. In the beginning of August 2008, Obama dropped his "blanket opposition to expanded offshore drilling," saying that he would be willing "to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage" in order to get Republican votes for comprehensive climate and energy reform. The New York Times writes that his announcement confronts the "essential political reality" that "the Senate will insist on offshore drilling as part of a broader bill, expected after Easter, addressing climate change and other energy-related problems." Many political analysts, however, wonder why the President chose to announce this drilling expansion now, as "any price is too high a price to pay in exchange for nothing at all."
WHAT'S THE PAYOFF?: An expansion in offshore drilling leases, the Energy Information Administration has found, will have no effect on gas prices or dependence on foreign oil for decades. As then-senator Obama noted in 2005, "We could open up every square inch of America to drilling and we still wouldn't even make a dent in our oil dependency." Neither will it increase jobs, as oil companies aren't really interested in new drilling -- they are already sitting on existing leases instead of drilling them, in order to inflate their bottom lines by claiming the value of leased oil reserves as an asset. "Before oil companies drill off thousands of miles of pristine coastline, they should first use the thousands of drilling leases they already own," said Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Furthermore, a Center for American Progress study has found that money invested in offshore oil drilling would create three times as many jobs if the same amount of money were instead invested in renewables, but Big Oil refuses to make serious investments in clean energy. Obama's plan has dismayed environmentalists, youth activists, progressive commentators, and Democratic politicians who oppose expanded offshore drilling, especially without an established plan to halt global warming. "It would in my mind be more confidence building to have this as part of the final agreement rather than the opening discussion," said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA).
PLAN SPLITS THE RIGHT: Most conservatives have thus far indicated that they are unwilling to compromise in exchange for the administration's lifting of offshore oil drilling bans. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) immediately "dismissed the president's plan as not going far enough in opening up U.S. waters for exploration," going so far as to accuse Obama of defying "the will of the American people." Chairman of the House Republican Conference and the American Energy Solutions Group Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) derided the plan as a "smokescreen" and a "feeble attempt to gain votes" for comprehensive energy legislation. David Koch's Americans for Prosperity Vice President Phil Kerpen said "the idea that this is a big concession in exchange for which Congress should jumpstart climate legislation is ridiculous." Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin mocked the plan as "Stall, Baby, Stall," saying it's "an effort to shore up fading support for the Democrats' job-killing cap-and-trade (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) proposals." However, the "oil industry, business groups and some Republicans offered muted support for the proposal." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called it a "step in the right direction," Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) "welcome[s] the President's decision," and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) agreed that it was a "good first step," but all said there should be fewer restrictions and more subsidies for drilling than the president proposed.
CALLING THE 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' BLUFF: Obama's drilling announcement yesterday is coupled with the finalization today of a "historic agreement to raise fuel economy standards in cars and trucks" -- the first major increase in decades and the first to recognize global warming pollution. These standards will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil starting in 2012, long before any new offshore drilling could even start producing oil. Obama's moves reflect his "comprehensive view of our energy policy," and his drilling announcement pleased senators like Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), who called it "good news and a positive step forward as we work to expand our nation's domestic energy production." Politicians on both sides of the aisle have long said they support an "all of the above" approach, language first promoted by Gingrich and House Republicans. Senators like Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Mark Udall (D-CO), Bob Bennett (R-UT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Barrasso (R-WY), and Richard Lugar (R-IN) claim to support an "all of the above" energy policy. The Obama administration is now delivering on that policy, with an "all of the above" plan that includes support for renewables, efficiency, nuclear power, offshore drilling, and advanced coal technology -- coupled with a price on carbon pollution that limits greenhouse gases and provides revenue for clean investment. President Obama has called the bluff of the all-of-the-abovers now, as he pushes for energy reform that cuts global warming pollution -- the only true "all of the above" approach. There's little reason to believe many Republicans are interested in working with the President, however, conservative strategist Dan Bartlett said yesterday. "Now, do I think that this measure here will help grease the path for a climate change bill and bring Republicans on board? No. Republicans in the Congress have made a calculation that cooperating with this administration at this time is not necessary for them to pick up seats." When Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Graham unveil all-of-the-above climate legislation this month, we will find out who wants "all of the above," or who just wants all of the pollution.
Profits Over Safety
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Igor Volsky, and Alex Seitz-Wald
On Monday, 25 miners died and another four went missing after an explosion took place at 3 p.m. at Massey Energy-owned Performance Coal Co.'s Upper Big Branch Mine-South between the towns of Montcoal and Naoma in West Virginia. The deadly accident resulted in "the most people killed in a U.S. mine since 1984, when 27 died in a fire at Emery Mining Corp.'s mine in Orangeville, Utah." Rescue teams attempted to retrieve the four missing miners on Tuesday, but were forced to turn back "because unsafe levels of methane and carbon monoxide posed a risk of a second explosion." Early today, four rescue teams entered the Upper Big Branch Mine-South, "working their way to a chamber where it is hoped four unaccounted-for miners may be found." Though there is a "sliver of hope" that the miners could be rescued, "officials and townsfolk alike admitted" to the Associated Press that "they didn't expect to find any of the four still-missing miners alive." "We've been working against long odds from day one," said West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D). Since the accident on Monday, Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship -- whose mines have a long history of safety violations -- "has appeared several times before the cameras," but "has said very little, his face seeming almost expressionless as he quietly answers questions about his concern for miner safety." According to the New York Times, when Blankenship attempted to "announce the death toll to families who were gathered at the site" around 2 a.m. Tuesday, "people yelled at him for caring more about profits than miners' lives."
OVER 3,000 VIOLATIONS: According to Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) records, since 1995, Massey's Upper Big Branch-South Mine has been cited for 3,007 safety violations. Massey is contesting 353 violations, and 127 are delinquent. "Violations in 2009 were roughly double the amount from any previous year" and a violation involving mine foreman Terry Moore "was one of at least 50 'unwarrantable failure' violations assessed there in the past year, the most serious type of violation that MSHA can assess." In March 2010, 53 new safety citations were issued for Massey's mine, including violations of its mine ventilation plan. Federal regulators issued two citations against the Upper Big Branch Mine-South on Jan. 7 "because the intake system that was supposed to pull clean air inside was moving air in the wrong direction. Similar problems were also noted by the mine safety agency after a 2006 fire at a Massey mine in Logan County, W.Va., killed two miners. " The New York Times reports today that "federal officials said two safety citations were made against the mine's operator on the day of the explosion." "One of the citations issued Monday against the operator, the Massey Energy Company, was for failing to properly insulate and seal spliced electrical cables" while the other "was for failing to keep maps of above-ground escape routes current." Blankenship is dismissive of the safety violations. "Violations are unfortunately a normal part of the mining process," he said in an interview with the Metronews radio network in West Virginia. "There are violations at every coal mine in America, and U.B.B. was a mine that had violations," he added, referring to Upper Big Branch Mine-South. In a 2003 Forbes profile, Blankenship said, "We don't pay much attention to the violation count." In addition to violations at the Upper Big Branch Mine, the Washington Independent's Mike Lillis notes that "the dozens of other active tunnel mines owned by" Massey "have run up thousands of safety violations this year alone."
A HISTORY OF DISASTER: Monday's tragic explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine-South was not the first environmental or safety disaster to occur at a Massey Energy-owned property. Massey is the parent of Martin County Coal, which was responsible for the "nation's largest man-made environmental disaster east of the Mississippi" until the 2008 Tennessee coal-ash spill. "In October 2000, a coal slurry impoundment broke through an underground mine shaft and spilled over 300 million gallons of black, toxic sludge into the headwaters of Coldwater Creek and Wolf Creek," in Martin County, Kentucky. In 2008, Massey's Aracoma Coal Co. agreed to "plead guilty to 10 criminal charges, including one felony, and pay $2.5 million in criminal fines" after two workers died in a 2006 fire at the Aracoma Alma No. 1 Mine in Melville, West Virginia. Massey also paid $1.7 million in civil fines. The mine "had 25 violations of mandatory health and safety laws" before the fire on January 19, 2006, but Blankenship passed off the events that caused the deaths as "statistically insignificant." Days before fire broke out in the Aracoma mine, a federal mine inspector tried to close down that section of the mine, but "was told by his superior to back off and let them run coal, that there was too much demand for coal." Massey failed to notify authorities of the fire until two hours after the disaster. Three months before the Aracoma mine fire, Blankenship sent managers a memo saying, "If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers or anyone else to do anything other than run coal...you need to ignore them and run coal. This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that the coal pays the bills." A week later, however, Blankenship sent a follow-up memo, saying that safety is the first responsibility.
PAID-FOR POLITICAL PROTECTION: Blankenship is not just a coal baron, he's also a right-wing activist millionaire who sits on the boards of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Mining Association. He's "a highly active GOP fundraiser and bankroller who is known for his outspoken opposition to labor unions." The Center for Responsive Politics has calculated "that individuals and PACs connected to Massey Energy have contributed more than $300,000 to federal candidates in the past two decades, 91 percent of which went to Republicans." "Blankenship contributed the federal maximum of $30,400 last year to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and he has supported Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and GOP Senate candidates Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio," the Washington Post reports. After the Marin County Coal spill, then-U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, who oversaw the MSHA, "put on the brakes" on an agency investigation into the spill by placing a staffer to her husband, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in charge. In 2002, a Labor Department judge levied a $5,600 fine. "In September 2002, Massey's PAC gave $100,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee," which McConnell had previously chaired. Overall, McConnell has been one of the top recipients of Massey-related contributions, collecting $13,550 from Massey-connected contributors. Blankenship's closeness to prominent Republicans helped him land allies at the highest levels of the federal mine safety system during the Bush administration. Massey COO Stanley Suboleski was named a commissioner of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission in 2003 and was nominated in December 2007 to run the Energy Department's Office of Fossil Energy. Suboleski is now back on the Massey board. After being rejected twice by the Senate, President Bush put one-time Massey executive Dick Stickler in charge of the MSHA by a recess appointment in October 2006. In the 1990s, Stickler oversaw Massey subsidiary Performance Coal, the operator of the deadly Upper Big Branch Mine, after managing Beth Energy mines, which "incurred injury rates double the national average." Bush named Stickler acting secretary when the recess appointment expired in January 2008.
Obama's U.N. Sanctions Push
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Igor Volsky, and Alex Seitz-Wald
After long resisting calls to join in sanctions efforts aimed at the Iranian nuclear program, "China signaled to its partners on the United Nations Security Council that it is ready to consider a council resolution" in favor of sanctions. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "affirmed late Monday the participation in Iranian sanctions talks of China, seen as the most hesitant member of the so-called 'P5-plus-1' -- the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany that are negotiating with Tehran." On Wednesday, the six major world powers -- the United States, Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany, and China -- agreed "to begin putting together proposed new sanctions on Iran over its suspect nuclear program after China dropped its opposition." U.S. and other Western diplomats are "also pressing hard on two non-veto-wielding Council members, Turkey and Brazil, both of which have publicly questioned the usefulness of sanctions, to at least abstain on any final vote." President Obama predicted on Tuesday that he would be able to persuade the United Nations to "move forcefully" against Iran with new sanctions within weeks, not months. "The fact that Beijing has agreed to discuss these steps is bad news for Tehran," writes Iran analyst Meir Javedanfar. "This is why Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, dispatched the top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, to hold talks with the Chinese government." State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the United States wants to focus on financial holdings of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, as part of a resolution that puts an appropriate bite on the Tehran government but spares the Iranian people undue hardship. The Iranian government remains defiant that sanctions will not halt its nuclear program.
'AN INTELLIGENCE COUP': Earlier this week, ABC News reported that an Iranian nuclear scientist "who disappeared last year under mysterious circumstances, had defected to the CIA and been resettled in the United States." Intelligence officials called the defection of scientist Shahram Amiri "an intelligence coup" in the continuing CIA operation to spy on and undermine Iran's nuclear program. In a recent report (pdf) to Congress, the CIA concluded that "Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so," but also restated its previous conclusion that "we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons." While the upcoming National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran is expected to revise some of the key conclusions of the 2007 NIE -- which held that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen -- the news that the United States has had custody since last June of a key Iranian nuclear scientist raises questions about how drastic those revisions might be. ABC reports that Amiri "has been extensively debriefed since his defection by the CIA, according to the people briefed on the situation. They say Amiri helped to confirm U.S. intelligence assessments about the Iranian nuclear program." Obama told CBS that "all the evidence indicates" that Tehran is trying to get the "capacity to develop nuclear weapons."
CONSERVATIVES COMPLAINING: For eight years, the Bush administration failed to effectively confront Iran's nuclear ambitions, yet many former Bush officials and supporters are now criticizing the Obama administration for the same thing. Former (recess-appointed) U.N. ambassador John Bolton, a long-time advocate of bombing Iran, said Thursday that Obama is "naive" in thinking more sanctions against Iran will stop its nuclear program. "This additional round of sanctions will have no material impact," Bolton said. Likewise declaring the new sanctions to be "failing" even before they've been adopted, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute described the options as: "Either Iran gets a nuclear weapon and we manage the risk, or someone acts to eliminate the threat" through military force. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol declared Obama's engagement policy a failure and accused the administration of preparing to accept an Iranian nuclear weapon. However, another Weekly Standard writer, Reuel Marc Gerecht, has credited Obama's approach with putting pressure on the Iranian regime, writing that "Obama could rightly claim that his outreach policy toward the Islamic Republic helped create the tumult that we've seen" since Iran's June 12 elections. Similarly, journalist David Ignatius, a long-time Iran watcher, wrote that "White House officials argue that their strategy of engagement has been a form of pressure, and the evidence supports them."
FORGING EFFECTIVE PARTNERSHIPS: During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-senator Obama clearly stated that a secondary benefit of his Iran engagement policy was the creation of greater international unity and focus on the Iranian nuclear problem. "If it [negotiation with Iran] doesn't work," Obama said during the first presidential debate, "then we [will] have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose tough sanctions" on Iran. That strategy seems to be working. Russia had been a skeptic of sanctions, but has now indicated a willingness to consider them. In late March, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that Iran was allowing an opportunity for mutually beneficial dialogue with the West to "slip away." "The [Iranian] regime has become more isolated since I came into office," Obama said in an interview with CBS News. "Part of the reason that we reached out to them was to say, 'You've got a path. You can take a path that allows you to rejoin the international community, or you can take a path of developing nuclear weapons capacity that further isolates you.'" Center for American Progress analysts Sam Charap and Brian Katulis wrote that Obama's "emphasis on collaboration and shared responsibilities constructed a new foundation for global security co-operation, which will extend beyond reining in Iran's nuclear program. In little over a year, the engagement policy has revived America's influence and leverage and created a diplomatic infrastructure that will make America more secure." As Rudy DeLeon, Winny Chen, and John Gans wrote in a 2008 report (pdf) for the Center for American Progress, "diplomacy, when integrated with other policy tools," provides "a powerful force multiplier for advancing U.S. interests."
Hurting Unemployed Americans For Political Purposes
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Igor Volsky, and Alex Seitz-Wald
Last week, the Labor Department announced the good news that the U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs in March, "the most created in nearly three years." "We have some more work to do, but I think the economy is definitely getting stronger," said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. "We've made a lot of progress, we've got some work to do still and it's going to take some time to heal the damage." Included in the Labor Department's April 2 report was the fact that nearly 15 million Americans remain out of work, putting the unemployment rate at 9.7 percent. Unfortunately, beginning today, hundreds of thousands of these people will be losing their unemployment benefits. On March 25, Senate Republicans, led by Oklahoma's Tom Coburn, blocked "a $9 billion measure containing one-month extensions of unemployment insurance." His move had the backing of the GOP leadership, and now unemployed Americans will have to wait for relief until Congress returns from recess on April 12, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promises that extending benefits will be the top priority. "It is inexcusable and irresponsible for Republicans to once again block the extension of these benefits," said Reid. "Their excuses ring hollow to American workers who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are trying to put food on the table, pay the rent, and take their children to the doctors."
FISCAL 'RESPONSIBILITY' AT THE EXPENSE OF THE UNEMPLOYED: Coburn is taking a page directly out of the playbook of Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY). In late February, Bunning objected to Reid's request for unanimous consent to approve a month-long extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Bunning finally relented after several Republicans began pressuring him. This time, however, the GOP leadership is standing solidly behind Coburn. In fact, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is even saying that Republicans should have given Bunning more support. "It took an act of courage like Sen. Bunning's to perhaps jolt people into the awareness of how bad it had really gotten," he said. The issue for Republicans is that no unemployment benefits should be extended unless Congress offsets the cost of the move by taking funds out of the stimulus. Coburn has actually tried to argue that out-of-work Americans will appreciate the GOP obstruction: "Hopefully they're not going to stay unemployed, and when they're reemployed, one of two things is going to happen: Either we're going to cut spending or somebody's going to raise their taxes." However, as the National Employment Law Project's Judy Conti explained, offsetting unemployment benefits is just bad economics. "Every economist from every side of the political spectrum will tell you that unemployment benefits are most stimulative when they are not offset," she said. "In the history of the unemployment program, we have never off set these programs." Democrats are arguing that the unemployment benefits extension is considered "emergency spending" and therefore not subject to paygo rules. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) has also wondered why the GOP insists on fiscal responsibility only at the expense of the less well-off: "Under President Bush, under the Republican Congress, that went away pretty fast. By not paying for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, somehow, that was OK."
REAL EFFECTS: The expiration of unemployment benefits will hit Americans across the nation. The Labor Commissioner of Maine, where approximately 1,500 people will lose benefits this week, said that Congress' delay is an "administrative nightmare." New York is estimating that 46,000 residents will lose benefits. In Utah, where 1,300 people will see their benefits lapse today alone, the Department of Workforce Services is urging people to continue filing their weekly benefit claims in the hope that Congress will quickly pass an extension that will apply retroactively. However, it's not only unemployment benefits that Republicans are blocking; the package they're holding up also included extensions for COBRA health insurance subsidies, a delay on cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, poverty guidelines, and authorization for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Record amounts of rainfall in the Northeast have brought the critical nature of the NFIP into focus in recent weeks. Flooding in Rhode Island was the worst it's been in 100 years, Boston saw its wettest March since record keeping began in 1872, while "bridges and highways have washed out from Maine to Connecticut and sewage systems have been overwhelmed to the point that families were asked to stop flushing toilets." National Guard troops were mobilized to aid residents in both Rhode Island and Massachusetts. According to the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, there are 5.5 million flood insurance policy holders in flood plains, homeowners who are now unable to renew their policies. If any of those homeowners were victims of the current flooding, they will "face complications" filing claims.
GOP BASHING UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS: Despite backing Coburn's blockade, Kyl on Sunday claimed that he supports "extending unemployment benefits because unemployment is so high." In fact, Roll Call reported last week that Republicans are planning to blame Democrats for the lapse in benefits, believing the issue "can play to their favor." Senate Republicans are pointing to the fact that House Democrats refused to go along with a plan agreed to by Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to pass a one-week extension of the benefits. The House, however, had already voted for the one-month extension. Additionally, it's unclear whether Republicans actually want to renew the benefits at all. Last month, Kyl said that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working. ... [C]ontinuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work." Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has warned against turning the "safety net" of unemployment benefits into a "hammock," and Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) has said that the government may be creating "hobos." Americans aren't receiving unemployment benefits because they're lazy, despite the GOP's claims. In this recession, the "share of the long-term unemployed who have been out of work and pounding the pavement in search of a new job for at least six months is at a record-breaking 44.1 percent, or 6.5 million workers." A major reason for this long-term unemployment is that there just aren't enough jobs for the unemployed, with more than "six unemployed workers per job opening."
Replacing Justice Stevens
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Igor Volsky, and Alex Seitz-Wald
On Friday, Justice John Paul Stevens, the longest-serving Supreme Court justice on the bench, announced that he would retire at the end of the term. President Obama, who has been preparing for an additional court vacancy for some time, suggested that he would name Steven's replacement in a matter of weeks. "We cannot replace Justice Stevens' experience or wisdom," Obama said in a brief statement. "I'll seek someone in the coming weeks with similar qualities: an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people. It will also be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens." Stevens was a Republican named to the court in 1975 by President Gerald Ford and became the court's most liberal justice in the second half of his tenure, as the composition of the court grew more and more conservative. Obama described Stevens as a "brilliant, non-ideological, pragmatic" justice who "applied the Constitution and the laws of the land with fidelity and restraint." He said he hoped the Senate would make sure Stevens' successor is in place for the beginning of the court's new term in October.
STEVENS' LEGACY: In his more than three decades on the court, "Stevens leaves a legacy of defending abortion rights, expanding protection for gays, restricting the availability of the death penalty and ensuring a robust role for judges in interpreting the nation's laws and curbing executive power," the Washington Post notes. "He embraced affirmative action (after first questioning it); declared a belief that the death penalty is unconstitutional (after first voting to restore it); and supported protections for gays. He also defended abortion rights and opposed the notion that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to personal gun ownership." The decisions Stevens is likely to be remembered for most, however, are those he authored on national security and presidential power. He wrote the court's 5-3 decision "repudiating President Bush's assertion of unilateral executive power in setting up war crimes tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba," and he authored the court's 6-3 decision allowing the Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detentions in the U.S. courts. In one of his least known decisions, Stevens convinced his fellow justices that "VCRs did not violate copyright laws when used in the home to make a single copy for personal use," refuting Hollywood's push to ban the devices and punish both the manufacturer and the home user with fines for copyright infringement. Stevens' 1992 decision in Quill v. North Dakota -- which held that Internet vendors "are free from state-imposed duties to collect sales and use taxes" -- paved the way for the massive growth of companies like Amazon.com and other Internet retailers. His 1997 ruling overturning the Communications Decency Act protected the Internet from broadcast-like regulations which would have made it a felony "for even a news organization to post certain four-letter expletives." "Replacing Justice Stevens is harder because Stevens plays so many critical roles on the current court: He's the leader of the liberal wing, the best opinion writer on the court and, simultaneously, the justice most able to build surprising coalitions," Douglas Kendall, head of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, said. "When the justices vote in private conference, the senior justice speaks just after the chief justice. This has meant, especially in close, ideologically divisive cases, that Stevens has had a chance to counter the views of former chief justice William H. Rehnquist and current Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr."
THE SHORTLIST: Three candidates are rumored to sit atop Obama's shortlist to replace Stevens. "Solicitor General Elena Kagan, whom Obama appointed as the first woman to hold the post; Judge Diane P. Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago and Judge Merrick B. Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit." Kagan, who some have argued is far more conservative than Stevens and could shift the political dynamic of the high court, is rapidly emerging as a frontrunner. Before becoming the first female Solicitor General in the nation's history, Kagan, 49, served as dean of Harvard Law School, where she showed an ability to build consensus and was widely credited with bringing more diverse views to the school. "As a result, when Kagan appeared last year before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing as solicitor general, two conservative law professors from Harvard were on hand to support her, including Jack Goldsmith, who has been assailed in liberal circles as an architect of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism legal strategy." Some liberals have also expressed concern that she is too moderate in her views. Diane Wood is 59 and has been a federal appeals judge "since Clinton tapped her in 1995 after she served in the Justice Department for three years." Wood's writings and opinions show that she believes in a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, is markedly a supporter of abortion rights, and would like to see the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Merrick Garland, 57, was an assistant federal prosecutor who handled a drug investigation into then-D.C. mayor Marion Barry before helping run the criminal division at the Department of Justice and serving as the principal associate deputy attorney general. "From his new perch, he oversaw the prosecution of Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski and the cases coming out of the anti-government movement at Ruby Ridge, Idaho." In 1997, President Clinton nominated Garland to the "U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, considered the nation's most crucial court behind the Supreme Court." "At the outset, Garland may have the easiest path to confirmation. He is considered a judicial moderate. On the appeals court, he largely handles regulatory and national security cases, thus avoiding others involving controversial social issues," the Los Angeles Times concludes.
GOP PREPARED TO FILIBUSTER: "The retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens presents a test for Republicans as much as it does for Obama as they weigh how much they want to wage a high-profile battle over ideological issues in the months before crucial midterm elections," the New York Times observes. Indeed, the party was split in its reaction to Stevens' announcement, promising to filibuster any "ideological" nominee while also pledging to give every candidate a fair hearing. Senate Judiciary Committee members Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said they would use the filibuster should Obama nominate someone they view to be outside the mainstream. Sessions even released a statement suggesting that he could make opposition to health reform a litmus test for an Obama nominee, even though the constitutional case against the Affordable Care Act is so weak that even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia rejects it. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) promised to filibuster "if the president picks someone from the fringe or someone who applies their feelings instead of applying the law." Meanwhile, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said, "We need to do our due diligence, and we need to probably bend over backwards both in appearance and in reality to give the nominee a fair process." On ABC's This Week, conservative columnist George Will criticized conservatives for saying that they want judges who will strictly follow the law while simultaneously cheering decisions that overturn the work of elected officials. Conservatives "say they're against judicial activism. By which they mean they want the court to defer to the elected political branches of government. But if you look at what's happened recently, the decision that most outraged conservatives was the Kelo decision on eminent domain. ... The court did defer to the city government in Connecticut and it enraged conservatives. The recent decision that most pleased conservatives -- Citizens United, overturning part of McCain-Feingold -- was the court not deferring to the Senate," Will said. Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Obama in all his appointments has nominated "people in the mainstream," and predicted that the "likelihood of a filibuster is tiny." "One of the most important qualities for the new justice is the ability to win over Justice Kennedy," Schumer said. In other words, he added, "somebody who's going to be one of the five and not one of the four."
