White House Is Said to Be Vetting Iowa Judge for Supreme Court Seat


NY Times:

White House Is Said to Be Vetting Iowa Judge for Supreme Court Seat

WASHINGTON — President Obama is vetting Jane L. Kelly, a federal appellate judge in Iowa, as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court, weighing a selection that could pose an awkward dilemma for her home-state senator Charles E. Grassley, who has pledged to block the president from filling the vacancy.
The F.B.I. has been conducting background interviews on Judge Kelly, 51, according to a person with knowledge of the process. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House is closely guarding details about Mr. Obama’s search to fill the opening created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
The president is expected to make his selection in the next couple of weeks, a decision that could reshape the court for decades but faces heated opposition from Republicans in Congress.

Mr. Grassley is at the center of that fight as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a post in which he alone can decide whether to hold confirmation hearings on a nominee. Like the panel’s other Republicans, he has vowed not to take any action until after the November election, arguing that the choice should be left to the next president.
In a Senate floor speech in 2013, Mr. Grassley effusively praised Judge Kelly, a longtime public defender, just before she won unanimous confirmation to her current position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The senator read from a handwritten recommendation letter he had received from a retired judge, David R. Hansen, a Republican appointee he counted as an old friend. Mr. Hansen called Judge Kelly a “forthright woman of high integrity and honest character” and a person of “exceptionally keen intellect.”

I assume she is wrong on abortion, marriage, &c but she was a Federal public defender and I like the idea of a Justice with actual trial experience. Right now the only one with courtroom experience (as a prosecutor) is Sotomayor and she was the first in a long time. IIRC the last one before her was Hugo Black who was a city court judge in Alabama.

Another name I’ve seen mentioned is Sri Srivanasan [sp?] who also has defense experience though his most famous defendant is Enron.


She’s from Iowa and senator grassley from Iowa, supported her when she was nominated for court of appeals.

If republican senators put up a block on her, especially when she was approved 97-0, with what’s going on with trump, things will get worse for them.


I find it a tad amusing that you defend the Democrats on every issue in every thread where you post. Just sayin…


That should not be too surprising, since there are many people here who defend the Republicans on every issue in every thread where they post too.


Ah your stalking me.

Yes I have democratic leanings, as well as republican leanings.

I’m just looking whole picture.

What would you say to this?

She was backed by senator grassley from Iowa, a republican. (Who people here say, republicans always back life) well she got approved by a vote of 97-0. Republicans backed her, so what do you say to that?


They are the only pro-life party, so no big surprise there :smiley:


Umm, on paper.

But not In reality, both parties have bloods on their hands.


Sounds to me like Obama is just playing politics with this.

First Sandoval, and now someone from Iowa, perhaps just to upset Grassley?

Also, I would say Charles Grassley is far more popular in Iowa than Barack Obama, and it’s a socially conservative state that Hillary Clinton stands a decent chance of losing in 2016.

Still think it’s good for the Democrats to play around with Iowans?


Very true.


So this means what? That it’s okay to vote for virulently pro-choice, anti-life, anti-marriage, anti-religious freedom political party with cemented anti-Catholic statements in its platform?

Ah your stalking me.


Not even close.

This is a public forum, and every account’s posting history is a click or two away.


Well, as I have said, if it’s so important to political parties what Catholics think, then they shouldn’t adopt virulently anti-Catholic positions.


Why do you think Obama is playing with Iowa? What does he have to gain by playing with Iowa.

I don’t know much of the nominee, but I do know Grassley supported her and she was confirmed 97-0


Answer this.

You vote for candidate X, for his staunch conservative views. He wants to eliminate abortions, gay marriage, give religious freedom.

But, when he’s in the senate, a court of appeals nominee comes forward to be voted on, who is on the opposite side of candidate X. Candidate X (senator X) votes yes for the nominee.

Now remember, the person whom he just confirmed is pro choice, in favor of same sex marriage. Does that mean you support abortion and gay marriage bc the candidate whom you voted for, just voted to approve a nominee who supports abortion and gay marriage?

Or are you free of all fault?


As Charles Krauthammer has pointed out on Special Report with Bret Baeir, Democrats blocked Robert Bork for the Supreme Court even though he was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court. He was not only confirmed but unanimously confirmed to the DC Circuit Court: congress.gov/nomination/97th-congress/891

Democrats therefore must have voted in support of Bork even though Republicans had a majority in the 97th Senate, but Bork was still blocked 6 years later from the Supreme Court.

If Kelly is the nominee and if she had taken liberal positions on issues like abortion, Republicans shouldn’t move forward there. What is the point? If Hillary Clinton becomes President she’ll nominate someone with liberal views likely, and if a Republican becomes President there’s a good chance they won’t, so Republicans should wait.

Grassley said Kelly’s easy confirmation to the appeals court has no bearing on her possible nomination for the Supreme Court. He suggested she could be considered for the court if Democrats Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders win the presidency.
"I supported her for the 8th Circuit, but as I’ve said it’s the principle not the person, and if Clinton or Sanders is elected, she may be on the short list,” Grassley said in an e-mailed statement. “Supreme Court scrutiny is some of the toughest there is. Just look at Robert Bork, who was also unanimously confirmed for a circuit court seat.”


If she could be on a short list of either Clinton or Sanders were elected, Republicans may as well take the chance that a Republican is elected and there is a chance of a better nominee.


Don’t you think he is doing this so he can use this fact as a political tool. Nominating a person for the SC is not the same as others courts. Why should the Republicans want to replace Scalia with someone with judicial activist leanings? That seems to crop up often when judges are elected to the SC.


If they are pro-life, then how come they nominated a pro-abortion candidate for president in 2012? A Catholic could not vote for Romney on his own merits, only because the alternative was worse. Would a truly pro-life party nominate a pro-abortion candidate?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.