Reuters: White House narrows search to three for Supreme Court
The White House has narrowed its search for a U.S. Supreme Court nominee to three federal appeals court judges, Sri Srinivasan, Merrick Garland and Paul Watford, a source familiar with the selection process said on Friday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-obama-idUSKCN0WD2LE
美國最高法院大法官一席空缺，路透社引述消息報道，美國白宮已敲定最後5名人選。當中包括呼聲甚高的南亞裔法官斯里尼瓦桑和女法官凱莉。
- 斯里尼瓦桑（Sri Srinivasan），49歲
南亞裔的斯里尼瓦桑，來自哥倫比亞特區聯邦巡迴上訴法院。那裡可說是最高法院大法官搖籃，斯卡利亞（Antonin Scalia）等多名大法官都曾任職該法院。若斯里尼瓦桑今次能獲任命，將會是美國首位印度裔大法官。
- 凱莉（Jane Kelly），52歲
同樣現任上訴法院法官的凱莉畢業自哈佛大學法律學院，當年與奧巴馬是同班同學。在2013年獲總統奧巴馬委任為上訴法院法官前，在艾奧瓦州司法部門任職多 年。同樣來自艾奧瓦州的參議員、司法委員會主席格拉斯利（Chuck Grassley）對她甚支持，相信有利通過任命。
- 傑克遜（Kentanji Jackson），45歲
非裔女法官傑克遜曾任最高法院大法官布雷耶（Stephen Breyer）助理，過去兩次獲任命為法官時都沒有一個共和黨人反對。但她只在地區法院任職，而非更高一級的上訴法院，司法界專家戈爾茨坦（Tom Goldstein）相信傑克遜未必會獲任命。
- 沃特福德（Paul Watford），48歲
同樣是非裔的沃特福德2012年獲奧巴馬任命上訴法院法官，過去曾任金斯伯格（Ruth Ginsburg）助理。
- 加蘭（Merrick B. Garland），63歲
上訴法院法官加蘭1997年獲時任總統克林頓提名，亦得共和黨人支持，有利在現時的政治形勢下獲參議院通過任命。
發佈日期： 2016-03-10 11:33
美國最高法院保守派大法官斯卡利亞（Antonin Scalia）逝世，有傳總統奧巴馬將會提名上訴法院法官、印度裔的斯里尼瓦桑（Sri Srinivasan）接任，此舉符合奧巴馬擁抱多元的取向，而且有助吸納亞裔美國人及太平洋島民社區選票，為民主黨選情造勢。
有傳總統奧巴馬將會提名聯邦上訴法院法官、印度裔的斯里尼瓦桑接替逝世的斯卡利亞，出任最高法院大法官。（Getty Images）斯里尼瓦桑來自哥倫比亞特區聯邦巡迴上訴法院，可謂是最高法院大法官搖籃，斯卡利亞等多人都曾任該法院法官。早在2013年已有估計奧巴馬卸任前，會提名斯里尼瓦桑進最高法院。若斯里尼瓦桑今次能獲任命，將會是美國首位印度裔大法官。
他的南亞種族背景已受到不少少數族裔社區關注，該等社區是奧巴馬的重要票源，根據加州大學河濱分校教授Karthick Ramakrishnan的調查，2008年92%的印度裔美國人投票予奧巴馬，2012年亦有86%亦是投予奧巴馬。若奧巴馬提名斯里尼瓦桑，可能為民 主黨總統參選人爭取更多支持。
在種族背景上，斯里尼瓦桑得到民主黨的支持；在政治層面上，由於他曾代表埃克森美孚及安然等大企業打官司，被保守派認為未算針對商界。加上他任擔上 訴法院法官時的判決也未曾有太多爭議，因此共和黨對他的「戒心」較低，連共和黨總統參選人克魯茲（Ted Cruz）亦曾稱讚他聰明；分析認為他的政治取向將比較搖擺。
已故大法官斯卡利亞在爭議性議題上態度保守，他支持死刑，強烈反對槍械管制，保留由州政府決定墮胎政策而不是聯邦政府，反對同性婚姻。
他的保守取向，主要源於他的司法哲學。他確信法律上的原旨主義（Originalism），即認為法官在詮釋憲法時，應先考慮立法原意。以槍管為 例，斯卡利亞曾在相關案件的判辭中表示，憲法原意是讓民兵組織持有合法武器，而當時民兵組織是指有能力服務軍隊的人民，因此憲法保障人民持槍的權力。基於 原旨主義，斯卡利亞在重要議題上的取向並不利民主黨。
過往取向多元化
由於美國最高法院大法官是終身任職，一般在位時間長過總統任期，因此奧巴馬透過委任最高法院大法官，可能影響未來數十年的法治發展、甚至政治生態環 境。奧巴馬過往提名的法官均非常多元，如他曾提名同性戀黑人William Thomas，另近半獲他提名的均為女性，19%為非洲裔，取向十分「政治正確」。
有保守派質疑奧巴馬的選人模式「多元化高於司法哲學」，對司法哲學「定義模糊」。奧巴馬法學背景深厚，曾任哈佛大學法學院《哈佛法律評論》編輯、又 曾在芝加哥大學法學院任教，他的法學理念與保守派迥異，他曾表示法官判案時需明白判決對民眾日常生活的影響，強調法律應與時並進；相反，小布殊則曾表示， 希望法官可以嚴謹遵守憲法及法律，而非在場邊立法，又希望法官可以制定一套明確的司法理論，協助他的管治。
可以肯定的是，斯卡利亞逝世，美國最高法院中保守派和自由派勢力的平衡暫時被打破，因此今次的任命人選備受關注。
發佈日期： 2016-02-17 08:00
(香港01最新訊息)
Left frets about possible Obama pick for high court
(via The Hill)
Sri Srinivasan is on President Obama’s short list for the Supreme Court, but his representation of corporate clients is causing heartburn for the left.
Srinivasan is an attractive candidate for Obama, who wants to make Republicans look as bad as possible if they follow through on their vow to blockade any nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
He’d also be the first Indian-American and Hindu to serve on the Supreme Court.
The problem?
As an attorney for O’Melveny & Myers, he defended ExxonMobil and mining giant Rio Tinto for allegations of serious human rights abuses in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.
“It’s hard to find a worse client than defending Exxon Mobil against allegations of torture and war crimes,” Jamie Henn, communications director for 350.org, a group that advocates for a safe climate and a just, prosperous and equitable world.
He accused Srinivasan of helping corporations “dismantle human rights law,” and called his record “deeply disturbing.”
“Unless he can clarify that he no longer stands behind these arguments, he should be disqualified,” he said.
Srinivasan’s work as a lawyer for the Department of Justice has also drawn scrutiny because of connections it may have to his work in the private sector.
Critics on the left say more light needs to be shed on his work at the Department of Justice when it submitted a brief to the Supreme Court supporting Royal Dutch Petroleum in a lawsuit alleging the company engaged in human rights abuses.
“We do think there should be full disclosure of his role as a lawyer at the Department of Justice at a time when the solicitor general’s office was formulating positions on corporations’ liability for human rights abuses,” said Marco Simons of EarthRights International.
In 2013, the group urged senators to oppose Srinivasan’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, citing his work for ExxonMobile and calling him “one of the principle architects” of a corporate strategy to undermine the use of U.S. law to fight human rights abuses around the world.
It has since “reconsidered” its opposition because his record on the appellate court “has demonstrated that he is a fair and thoughtful jurist” not held captive by corporate interests, the group said.
Nevertheless, the group argues that the Obama administration should fully reveal Srinivasan’s activities — especially on the legal question of applying U.S. law to corporate abuses overseas — while at the Justice Department, where he served as deputy solicitor general from 2011 to 2013.
The Justice Department filed an amicus curiae brief in June of 2012 arguing that Royal Dutch/Shell should not be sued in U.S. court under the Alien Tort Statute for human rights abuses in Nigeria.
The case involved a plaintiff who sued the oil company for liability after her husband was murdered after protesting the oil company’s practices.
The court ruled that the company was not liable in the United States for alleged abuses in Africa, even though the woman was a U.S. resident and Royal Dutch/Shell has a presence domestically.
It’s unclear whether Srinivasan was at all involved in the Justice brief, but the environmental groups want firm answers if he is nominated to the Supreme Court.
They argue the ruling in favor of Royal Dutch/Shell led directly to the dismissal of a lawsuit against Srinivasan’s former client, Rio Tinto, in June of 2013. The litigation against ExxonMobile is still pending.
“There were substantial implications for some of his former clients,” said Simons of EarthRights International. “If he was excluded from the brief, we’d like that to be confirmed. If he wasn’t, we’d like to know why.”
Simons noted the brief was so controversial that the State Department, which had coauthored another amicus brief with Justice earlier in the litigation, declined to sign on.
Srinivasan’s name does not appear on the controversial brief. Instead, it lists Edwin Kneedler, the other deputy solicitor general. But Simons says that doesn’t mean much.
“Often there are many more people than listed on the brief who are involved in the process,” he said.
Other groups on the left have raised concerns over Srinivasan.
In 2013, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka issued a critical statement, declaring, “Srinivasan’s record should be closely examined to get a full picture of his professional background and experience.
Trumka argued the president should nominate judges who understand the challenges facing working families.
An AFL-CIO official said Friday that the union did not have anything more to say about Srinivasan.
Alliance for Justice, another liberal group, also questioned Srinivasan’s background in 2013. The group said his career “left open some questions about his commitments to workers’ rights and to the rights of everyday Americans facing corporate and banking interests on the federal court.”
That group has also declined to comment on his possible nomination to the Supreme Court. Liberal groups are by and large holding back on discussing potential nominees until Obama reveals his selection, which is expected next week.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have touted Srinivasan in the past, which could make him a tempting nominee when Republicans have ruled out hearings and a confirmation vote.
Ted Olson, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush, and Ken Starr, who investigated the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the Clinton administration, both backed Srinivasan in 2013.
Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran (R) warmly praised Srinivasan, who grew up in Kansas, while his circuit court nomination was pending.
Moran called him “a very highly qualified individual of integrity” and one of his state’s “most accomplished legal minds.”
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
