This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Today as I was searching for more information about President Barack Obama's judicial appointments to our federal courts, I came across an interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal by none other than the co-founder of the Federalist Society. Join me below the jump for all the fun!


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

In the  editorial written just before election day, Steven Calabresi notes that nothing other than the fate of the Federal Courts is at stake in the election. In a whiny, hyperventilating tone Calabresi sizes up the "legal left," as he calls those of us whose hearts seek justice regardless of where we fit into society. In a mischaracterization of truth bordering on subterfuge, Calabresi opens his editorial with a shot across the bow aimed at Congressional Democrats.

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.
Those of us familiar with Senate Democrats' week and feeble attempts at stopping some of George W. Bush's most odious nominees are certainly aware how laughable and ludicrous this statement really is.
But, there's more!
Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

I don't know about you, but I'm beginning to feel his pain...not!!
The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation's most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

One can only hope that Calabresi's ominous (for conservatives) predictions about our federal judiciary come true. A President never really knows how many appointments he is going to be able to make.

Calabresi goes on to insinuate that the "legal left" is mischaracterizing just how right-wing our federal courts are now.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.
As a proud proponent of the "legal left," though I'm not a lawyer, I can only marvel in the joy I feel that a prominent legal conservative, someone who has helped turn the federal courts into a bastion of corporate power, into a haven for screw the little guy group-think, may never get another chance to do such damage again to that which is there to protect the right of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.  

Anyway, it's a great read for all you bleeding hearts, so do check it out.

Also, I came across this link on wikipedia where you can follow the progress of Obama's "legal left" takeover of the federal judiciary:


Thanks for reading,


Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to A Peaceful Warrior on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:13 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.