Judge Merrick Garland

President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, is described as brilliant and eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court by both Republicans and Democrats.  In making his announcement, President Obama described Garland as, "someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence."   But, unfortunately Garland's superb qualifications will not matter. 

Garland is currently the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court.  He is a native Chicagoan, and was the valedictorian of his high school class.  In 1974, he was valedictorian of his Harvard class, where he graduated with an A.B. summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in social studies.  He then attended Harvard Law School, graduating in 1977 with a J.D. magna cum laude.  He was also a member of the Harvard Law Review.   He was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, and took a job as a federal prosecutor during President George H. W. Bush's administration.  

 In 1993, Garland joined the Clinton administration as deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Subsequently, he did an outstanding job supervising the Oklahoma City bombing prosecutions, the UNABOM prosecution, and the Atlanta Olympics bombing investigation.  President Bill Clinton nominated Garland to the D.C. Circuit Court in 1997, and the Senate confirmed him by a 76-23 vote.  The 23 no votes were cast by Republicans who were opposed to an eleventh seat on the D.C. Circuit.   They included Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, who at the time said,  "I have nothing against the nominee.  Mr. Garland seems well qualified, and would probably make a good judge--in some other court." 

Judge Garland is generally viewed as "essentially the model, neutral judge" in his time on the D.C. Circuit.  He has twice been a finalist for open Supreme Court seats, earning praise from Republicans and Democrats.  The law has been a lifelong commitment for Garland, who emotionally described his nomination as "the greatest honor in my life, other than Lynn agreeing to marry me 28 years ago." 

In selecting Judge Garland, the president fulfilled his constitutional duty: "he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court." The Constitution does not say a president cannot nominate a justice if he has less than a year left in his or her presidency.  Nor does it say that the Senate must consider the president's nominee.  However, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 63 percent of Americans believe that the Senate should hold hearings on the president's nominee. 

Shortly following the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia Senate, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell abruptly declared, "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”  In an unprecedented move, McConnell said the Senate would not consider a nominee.  In a letter published in USA Today Wednesday, McConnell wrote,  "As Vice President Biden said when he was Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, 'Once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.'” 

Then Senator Joe Biden's remarks were delivered on the Senate floor in June of 1992, after several fierce Supreme Court fights.  Biden also said he would support a future President George Bush nominee.  Last month, Biden released a statement that read, “Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year...This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject.”

Nonetheless, the president, a constitutional lawyer, spent one month reviewing candidates prior to his announcement Wednesday.   "At a time when our politics are so polarized," the president said Wednesday, "this is precisely the time we should play it straight."  Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who has been a supporter of Garland, may have been pleasantly surprised with the president's announcement.  Last week Hatch told Newsmax, "(Obama) could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man."  He then added,  "He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."   Hatch is among a handful of Republican Senators who say they will extend Garland the courtesy of a meeting.  

Because Scalia was such a powerful conservative voice in this nation, Republicans are determined to block Obama from filling the position.  Of course, since Obama's first day in office in 2009, Senator McConnell and Congressional Republicans have done all they can to block the president's agenda.  They have exacerbated the divisions within this country, and regularly played on people's worst fears instead of their hopes and dreams.  They have demonized and often disrespected President Obama.  They have consistently put their political party ahead of their country.   Their tactics have led to the emergence of Donald Trump. In fact, if Garland is not confirmed, the appointment could be filled by President Trump or President Hillary Clinton.

In accepting the president's nomination, a grateful Judge Garland said, "A life of public service is as much a gift to the person who serves as it is to those who he is serving."  He concluded, "there can be no higher public service than serving as a member of the United States Supreme Court."  That may be true, but he may never have a chance to do so.  

Supreme Court Showdown

Once a lame duck president called upon the Senate to, "Join together in a bipartisan effort to fulfill our constitutional obligation of restoring the U.S. Supreme Court to full strength."  He also called on the Senate for, "Prompt hearings conducted in the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship."  In February 1988, eight months before that year's presidential election, the Senate voted 97-0 to confirm President Ronald Reagan's nominee, Anthony Kennedy.  

President Reagan, the founding father of the modern Republican Party, governed recognizing that the American democratic system calls for compromise.   He is quoted as telling aides, "I'd rather get 80 per cent of what I want than go over the cliff with my flag flying."   Reagan and then Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill respectfully worked together in the best interest of the American people, just the way our Founding Fathers had originally envisioned. 

So when conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly earlier this month, President Barack Obama announced his intention to fulfill his constitutional obligation to put forth a Supreme Court nominee.  In a post on the ScotusBlog website Wednesday, the president wrote the person he nominates will the eminently qualified.  "I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda," he wrote, "but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand."

But Senate Republicans announced that there would be a no confirmation hearing and no vote on the president's nominee.  "This nominee will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the polls," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said to reporters Tuesday.  "In short, there will not be action taken."  As a justification, Republicans cited a June 1992 quote from then Senator Joe Biden, who said, "President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed."  However, Biden's comments were not made in February, but rather in late June, shortly before Congress's summer recess.  And Biden was speaking of a possible resignation, not a sudden death. 

Battles between the political parties over Supreme Court nominees have been increasingly contentious in recent history.  Nonetheless, in a shocking and unprecedented move, McConnell said would not even meet with Obama's nominee.  "I don't know the purpose of such a visit," he told reporters.

By making such a move, Senate Republicans are once again showing their utter contempt for President Obama.   More importantly, they are once again demonstrating that their most important priority is winning political victories and settling scores rather than complying with the Constitution.   Republicans think that by calling Obama the most divisive president ever, voters will overlook the fact that it is really the GOP that has been the great divider.  

On the day Obama was first sworn in 2008, Republican leaders held a meeting in which they agreed to block Obama and make him a one term president.  Of course, Republicans have since consistently done all they could to gum up the works.  For instance, they blocked immigration reform, they shut the federal government down in 2012 over whether to raise the federal debt ceiling, they have blocked dozens of important judicial appointments, and they did nothing to silence the Obama birther movement.  

However, as a consequence of endless Republican obstructionism, voters are frustrated and angry with Washington.  This has led to the rise of Donald Trump as a Republican presidential candidate, and a civil war within the party.  Meanwhile, Obama, despite of all the impediments he has faced these past seven years, has made real headway on the economy, banking reform, equal pay for women, health care, and he has kept the country safe.  

The president intends on nominating a replacement for Scalia.  A Fox News poll released Monday found that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe that Obama should make a nomination and the Senate should take action.   Despite their bluster, Senate Republican leaders should allow the president's candidate to be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  If the candidate is affirmed there, the Republican controlled Senate should take up the nomination.  For Senate Republicans to declare that they won't even meet with the candidate goes against the constitution, and it seems childish.  What do they fear?

Perhaps they should reflect on the words of their spiritual leader, "There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers," Ronald Reagan said.  "We must have the courage to do what is morally right."  

Antonin Scalia and Politics

Antonin Scalia was one of the most influential and consequential justices in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, he was the intellectual anchor for today's conservative movement. His sudden death was a shock to all Americans, especially Republicans, who immediately assumed their battle positions.

The U.S. Constitution specifies (Article II, Section 2) that the president, "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law." Certainly a strict constitutional originalist like Scalia would have agreed that a president with eleven months left in office has the right to nominate someone for the Supreme Court.

Shortly after word of Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who decides what the Senate takes up, said in a statement that President Barack Obama should not nominate a replacement. "The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

This unprecedented message was followed by similar warnings from Republican presidential candidates. Texas Senator Ted Cruz took to Twitter, saying, "Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement." Florida Senator Marco Rubio also said Obama should not nominate a replacement. "The next president must nominate a justice who will continue Justice Scalia's unwavering belief in the founding principles that we hold dear," he said in a statement.

Justice Scalia's death dominated the early portion of Saturday's Republican debate in South Carolina. Minutes before the debate, which aired on CBS, President Obama expressed his condolences to Scalia's family while praising the jurist's "remarkable" life. Then the president said, "I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in -- due time." He continued, "There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote."

The president's comments were fuel for an over-heated and feisty debate atmosphere. Donald Trump warned Senate Republicans to "delay, delay, delay." Cruz said that, "the Senate needs to stand strong and say we're not going to give up the Supreme Court for a generation." Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush called for a "consensus pick," which would be almost impossible to find with a deeply divided Congress.

Republicans feel they own the Scalia court position. Their comments and actions are consistent with the partisan war they have been waging in Washington from the day President Obama was first sworn in to office. For nearly eight years now the first instinct for Republicans in Congress has been to obstruct, block and divide. This, no doubt, plays well with certain segments of the Republican Party. But such tactics have demoralized much of the electorate and have probably led to the rise of Donald Trump.

Why didn't McConnell simply say that should the president offer a nomination, as is his right under the Constitution, the Senate would take it up? After all, the same American people who McConnell says should have a voice twice overwhelmingly reelected President Obama to office. Furthermore, the Constitution does not say the president shall appoint unless he has less than a year left in office.

Republicans would be far wiser to agree to let the process take its course and then focus their attention on defeating the president's nominee in the Senate. This is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the rules.

What an appropriate way this would be for Republicans to remember the man who they consider to be the greatest defender of the U.S. Constitution.

Broadcasters Prevail

In a major win for broadcasters the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Aereo, a streaming service that provides access to programs at about the same time as they are broadcast, violates the Copyright Act of 1976.  The decision is a huge blow for Aereo, which may go out of business.  

Aereo offers subscribers broadcast television programming over the Internet for a monthly fee of $8 to $12 a month.  Its system is made up of servers and thousands of dime-sized antennas stored in a central warehouse.  Aereo's technology makes a copy of a program into a subscriber's file, then makes it possible for only that subscriber to view the program on their computer, tablet or smartphone, seconds after the broadcast begins airing.  

Aereo neither owns the copyright to the program, nor a license to rebroadcast the program.  But it argued that it is not transmitting the program, rather the subscriber is transmitting the program.  The Court's opinion, written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, said, "We do not see how the fact that Aereo transmits via personal copies of programs could make a difference.  The Act applies to transmissions by means of any device or process."  Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were in the minority.

Aereo launched in 2012 in its first market, New York.  Broadcasters, acting on behalf of their local New York City television stations, filed suit two weeks after the service was announced.  A federal judge ruled in Aereo's favor four months later.  Then in early 2013, a federal appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling.  Subsequently, the broadcasters petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. In oral arguments last April the Deputy Solicitor General argued against Aereo on behalf of the government. 

Broadcast networks retransmit their programs over stations throughout the country.  They derive part of their revenue from commercials.  But cable companies pay broadcasters about $3 billion for the right to carry broadcast programming over their systems.  Aereo argued that it is not like a cable company because it is renting out antennas and cloud storage to subscribers.  Had Aereo's argument been upheld it could have undermined the current broadcast economic model.  Then the broadcasters would likely have turned to Congress for help.

Both Aereo's CEO Chet Kanjojia and investor Barry Diller, a prominent media figure, have said in the past that the service would be shut down if they lost in the Supreme Court.  A CBS Spokesperson reacted to the ruling with a statement, saying, “We are pleased with today’s decision, which is great news for content creators and their audiences.”  Nonetheless, the Court's deliberations underscore the continuing challenges broadcasters face with advances in technology and changes in viewing habits.  

CNN: "The Newsroom"

CNN's embarrassing mistake on Thursday of declaring the U.S. Supreme Court overturned President Barack Obama's health care law was unforgivable.  The rush to be first prevailed over the need to be right for the desperate and ratings challenged CNN.  The incident was also a black eye for all television news.

The Newsroom, which premiered Sunday on HBO, was an overly dramatized attempt to decry the current state of the television news business. The program, which was filled with smart dialogue, internal conflict and self-righteousness, was a bit misleading about what happens behind the scenes at a cable news network.

Nonetheless, Aaron Sorkin should be praised for raising some important questions about television news. However, on Wednesday's CBS This Morning, Sorkin said, "News shows should be exempt from having to deliver ratings." Really? If there were no news ratings how would media companies pay their news gathering expenses?

Global news organizations, such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox, each cost several hundred million dollars to operate per year. For example, the Fox News Channel invests around $700 million annually, surpassing CNN for the first time in 2010. CNN has about 46 news bureaus worldwide, while Fox News has fewer than 20.

The idea that network news divisions were once allowed to be money-losing operations is not really true. No matter, today there is no way media companies can cover the massive costs of operating a quality and highly competitive global news organization by allocating funds from their other divisions. And why should they since the news business is a big business?

CNN and HLN (Headline News) combined make about $600 million in annual profits. The Fox News Channel makes more than $800 million in profits per year, and MSNBC about $200 million. The cable news companies benefit from two streams of revenue, advertising dollars and subscription fees. Fox News receives slightly more than CNN in advertising revenue per thousand viewers (CPM), but enjoys a huge advantage over CNN in monthly revenue per subscriber. Broadcast news organizations, such as CBS and ABC, are most heavily reliant on just advertising dollars.

In all cases news organizations are heavily dependent on ratings. Advertisers pay to have their commercials aired on newscasts based on how many viewers their ads reach. The higher the ratings the more a network can charge for its commercials. And if there is great demand for a cable news channel the subscription fees are likely to be affected.

In a report titled "The State of the News Media 2012" released three months ago, the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism highlighted the strength of the cable news business model. "One reason for the vigor is that the business model of cable news -- in which the cable channels receive half their revenue from fees bundled into monthly cable subscriptions from customers and half from advertising -- has proved over time to be remarkably resilient," the report said, "even as other sectors of the news industry continue to search for sustainable revenue streams."

But total cable news audience growth has pretty much flattened out. The news audience is increasingly more reliant on the Internet and mobile devices for information. Facebook and Twitter are impacting news coverage. And, to reinforce one of Sorkin's points, cable news programming often devolves into mindless chatter, hackneyed talking points and senseless spin. The topics are frequently predictable, the content is repetitive and news stories are often over-hyped.

NYU professor Jay Rosen wrote last year about his frustration with CNN:

"Too often, on-air hosts for the network will let someone from one side of a dispute describe the world their way, then let the other side describe the world their way, and when the two worlds, so described, turn out to be incommensurate or even polar opposites, what happens? CNN leaves it there. Viewers are left stranded and helpless. The network appears to inform them that there is no truth, only partisan bull. Is that real journalism?"

While all three of the cable news networks are facing ratings challenges, CNN has fallen and apparently it can't get up. Fox News has cornered the truly devoted conservative viewers, while MSNBC appeals to the liberals. That leaves CNN more or less in the middle trying to be all things to everybody in order to hang on to their loyal following. They seem to have lost their identity. Their programming strategy appears ad hoc, and their day-to-day production is uneven. CNN has one star, Anderson Cooper, but he is being misused. In fact, CNN only does well in the ratings when there is breaking news, but recently Fox News has been winning this category too.

Last month Turner Broadcasting President and CEO Phil Kent described some of CNN's problems as "self inflicted." CNN reports to Kent, so it was particularly noteworthy when he said, "We haven't put the best shows on the air." That's for sure, and nothing erodes viewer loyalty more quickly than poorly produced shows.

CNN can improve their current ratings performance just by increasing its original reporting, improving its writing and story-telling, focusing on more relevant stories and helping viewers understand why they should care about the issues it highlights. It can improve ratings by pursuing impactful investigative reports, challenging talking points and spin during newsmaker interviews, replacing some of its overused contributors, doing a better job of designing and executing programs, providing better teases, intros and tags, adding extra value in every report and using some imagination. These steps will give viewers more of a reason to watch CNN for longer periods of time at a sitting, and reason to return again more frequently each week.

At the same time CNN should think about a longer-term strategy. What new approach can it take to ensure its viability in the rapidly changing media landscape over the long haul? The times they are a changing.

Aaron Sorkin is a bold creator and a brilliant storyteller who produces with swagger and purpose, and casts his productions with strong and powerful talent. CNN is a fabulous news organization with many wonderful professionals. Perhaps there is a message in The Newsroom for CNN afterall.

Reverse Thinking

Immediately after President Barack Obama announced Judge Sonia Sotomayer as his nominee to the Supreme Court, conservatives unleashed a torrent of snarky criticism led by their pit bull and spiritual guide, Rush Limbaugh. So shrill were the criticisms that it is no wonder that the party of "NO" is dwindling into the party of NO ONE!

With less than one quarter of the country identifying themselves as Republicans, the party is struggling to find its way. Today few Americans have empathy (pardon the expression conservatives) for what's left of the GOP, and no wonder. The notion that Judge Sotomayer practices "reverse discrimination" is absurd and reflects the Republican tendency to use scare tactics.

A key element of the attacks is Judge Sotomayer's 2001 speech made at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law entitled, "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." At one point Judge Sotomayer said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who just hasn't lived that life."

Conservatives have seized on this statement as evidence that she is racist. They do not understand that this is an aspirational statement, not a condemnation of white males. It is also an incomplete representation of what she said. The judge went on to say, "I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

Another criticism centers on Judge Sotomayor's role in a dispute between the city of New Haven and a group of white and Hispanic firefighters. Here she was on a three judge panel that unanimously ruled the city was within its right to throw out results of a promotional exam because too few minorities scored high enough. The decision relied on precedent not on judicial activism. The case, known as the New Haven 20, is now before the Supreme Court.

Conservatives also cite a speech Judge Sotomayer made at Duke University in 2005 as evidence she will make policy from the bench. She said, "Court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know this is on tape and I shouldn't say that because we don't make law." But they leave out or dismiss the follow on sentence, "I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it . . . " She went on to clarify her comment, "When you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case, so you're looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is not precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you're looking to how the law is developing so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. So you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step of the development of the law."

Judge Sotomayer may have been blindsided by an anonymous quote that she in not really smart. The fact that she finished second in her class at Princeton University and edited the Yale Law Review seems to indicate the opposite. But that did not persuade Republican strategist Karl Rove from spouting this comment: "I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools." Never mind that his former boss, President George Bush, was barely an average student at Yale.

At best, these points will make for a lively discussion when Judge Sotomayer seeks confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Republicans have to tread carefully or they risk alienating the few Hispanic supports they do have. There are already more Hispanics in the United States than there are Canadians in Canada. Soon there may be more Hispanics than Republicans.

Judge Sotomayer's life story is powerful and compelling. Raised in a Bronx housing project, she has had to overcome great obstacles to achieve success. Unless something more serious comes up, Judge Sotomayer will take her place on the Supreme Court. She will be the third woman and first Hispanic to serve her country as a justice. She is living the American dream.

Hispanic Justice

"I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity," President Barack Obama said in commenting on whom he will nominate to replace retiring Associate Justice David Souter. But President Obama now has an important opportunity to pick someone who, if approved by the Senate, will lead to a Supreme Court that more truly reflects the composition of the American population.

America has been enriched by its diverse Hispanic culture. But this culture has been under represented in our government. Today more than 40 million Hispanics live in the United States, our nation's largest minority population. And, according to recent projections, more than 100 million Hispanics will live in this country by the year 2050, or about 30% of the population. Hispanics are a vibrant collection of cultures and political views. More than three-fifths of the U.S. Hispanic population is of Mexican origin; the other portion includes Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Cubans and people from throughout South and Central America.

U.S. Hispanics are doctors, lawyers, athletes and laborers. Hispanics are American soldiers who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. They serve as police officers and fire fighters. These men and women are our heroes too. They pay taxes, and own or rent homes. Their children attend our schools and many want their kids to live the American dream. While some Hispanics are third and fourth generation families, still millions more are new arrivals who speak little if any English. They read Spanish language newspapers, listen to Spanish language radio stations and live in tight knit communities. Nonetheless, they make up a booming portion of our economy.

Of his potential Supreme Court nominee, President Obama said, "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation." He continued, "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

In many ways, the Hispanic hopes and struggles are unique. There are important legal questions around immigration, discrimination and rights to a decent education and health care that call for a Hispanic perspective in our nation's highest court. How can the Supreme Court be truly "empathetic" if its composition does not reflect the the diversity of America? It is time for a Hispanic justice to be seated on the highest court in our land.

From a political perspective, Republicans are likely to oppose whomever President Obama chooses. Should the candidate be Hispanic, such opposition is likely to further alienate their party that has struggled nationally for Hispanic votes. Hispanics are an important voting block in states such as California, New York, Arizona and Colorado. But they may play a decisive role in less populous Southern and Midwestern states in coming elections. Therefore, Republican opposition to a Hispanic nominee just for ideological reasons would be extremely risky.

In the words of our Constitution, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the people of the United States" includes all of the people of this country. And the strength of America has always come from the diversity of its people, its ideas and experiences. I, therefore, urge President Obama to nominate the first Hispanic justice for the U.S. Supreme Court. And, by so doing, President Obama can make history again.