The New York Timesperhaps in a hurry, catches up on the usual profiles of a presidential candidate that usually appear during the nomination season. As Maureen Dowd points out, there was of course no such process for the current Democratic candidate. Nomination by acclimatization, so to speak. The game is called “backfill”. Today’s Just shared two pieces of news about Kamala Harris that may be of interest to readers.
First, it turns out that John Eastman, of all people, helped Harris win her razor-thin Attorney General race. For those who weren’t around fifteen years ago, Eastman was a leading figure in legal education. As dean of Chapman University, Eastman built a core of leading conservative law professors. One of his most important hires was the poaching of Ron Rotunda, my professor, from George Mason University. But in 2010, Eastman resigned as dean to run for Attorney General of California. Eastman lost the Republican primary to Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley. During that primary, when the Just Eastman landed a strong blow against Cooley. Apparently Cooley was entitled to both the Attorney General’s salary and his pension from his service as District Attorney. Eastman accused Cooley of “double-dipping.”
Later, during a debate between Cooley and Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Eastman’s “double dip” argument was brought up:
Dan Morain, who worked on the editorial page of the Sacramento Bee, asked who would raise the issue of “double-dipping” — that is, receiving both a public salary and a public pension. The issue had been raised once before in the Republican primaries and was first raised by John Eastman, Cooley’s primary opponent. Today, Eastman is better known for his efforts to keep Trump in office after the 2020 election, which led to his impeachment and expulsion from the bar.
“That’s what I’m going to ask,” replied Jack Leonard, a Los Angeles Times reporter who covered Mr. Cooley.
Collis gave the wrong answer, saying he had “earned” the right to accept the salary and pension:
In the courtroom, Mr. Leonard explained that the California Attorney General’s $150,000 salary is half the $292,300 salary that Mr. Cooley earned as district attorney. If he were to double-dip by receiving a taxpayer-paid pension as a former district attorney and a taxpayer-paid salary as attorney general, Mr. Cooley would earn more than $400,000.
“Are you planning to double-cross yourself by receiving both a pension and your salary as Attorney General?” asked Leonard.
“Yes, I do,” said Mr. Cooley without hesitation.
He glanced at Ms. Harris. She said nothing.
“I deserve it.”
But Mr. Cooley wasn’t finished. “I have definitely earned the pension rights that I have and I will use them to supplement the very low, incredibly low salary that the Attorney General is paid,” he added.
“It was insensitive,” Mr. Riggs said. “It was appalling,” Mr. Leonard said. “It was horrific,” Mr. Morain said. “It was mind-boggling,” Mr. Smith said.
Harris would win the race by less than 1%. I think it’s safe to say that John Eastman helped Harris win her race for Attorney General, at least in part. If the primary had gone differently, imagine if Eastman had defeated Harris in the general election. What a different world we would be living in.
The next piece of information concerns Harris’ role in filling Justice Breyer’s seat. As readers will recall, President Biden pledged to select a Black woman for the Supreme Court seat. (He had also previously pledged to select a Black woman for the vice presidency.) The three leading candidates were Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Leondra Kruger of the California Supreme Court, and District Judge Michelle Childs of South Carolina. Both Jackson and Kruger had served as Supreme Court clerks. Childs was favored by Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, who helped swing the 2020 Democratic primary in Biden’s favor.
VP Harris played a role in the process that the Just describes:
She was also heavily involved in Biden’s only Supreme Court appointment, interviewing all three finalists and studying their legal records. Although she found California Supreme Court Justice Leondra R. Kruger to be a “very astute lawyer,” she concluded that the judge might be too cautious at the moment, according to a former White House official.
J. Michelle Childs, then a district judge, had the backing of Mr. Clyburn and Senator Joe Manchin III, then a Democrat from West Virginia, making her the choice of least resistance. But Ms. Harris concluded that Ketanji Brown Jackson, a federal appeals judge, would be the boldest option, the former official and Mr. Klain said. “Joe, you may only get one chance to do this as president, and you want to be proud of your legacy here,” she told Mr. Biden, according to Mr. Klain.
There’s a lot packed into that paragraph. First, Harris reiterated the general consensus: Kruger, a former deputy attorney general, was seen as a “very sharp lawyer.” As a former deputy attorney general, she had earned a formidable reputation as an intellectual. But there were suggestions that she would not be so willing to make a splash. Apparently she was something of a moderate on the California Supreme Court! Kruger also very publicly declined President Biden’s invitation to serve as attorney general. (I’ve written about Kruger here, here, here, and here.) Second, Childs, who had been nominated to the D.C. Circuit, was seen as the candidate who would face the “least resistance.” (I’ve written about Childs here and here.) But did Harris endorse Kruger or Childs? No, she endorsed Jackson. Why? Third, Harris drew a contrast between Kruger and Jackson. The former was “cautious” and the latter “courageous.”
I know I am widely ridiculed on the right when I talk about judicial courage. But progressives get it. They understand instinctively that the greatest limitation of a Supreme Court justice is not her intellect or her precedents, but her bravery. Democrats have no interest in appointing an intellectual who displays caution to be a Supreme Court justice. Vice President Harris has fully recognized this dynamic. Caution may be fine for the lower courts, but it is not the order of the day for the Supreme Court. Courage is. And a judicial nominee’s record must clearly demonstrate his courage in word and deed. In that regard, Judge Jackson was the ideal choice for the Supreme Court and has justified her selection with everything she has done as a judge. Perhaps we should ask Harris to help select Republican nominees for the Supreme Court?
