JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 4, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
John McCormack at the Weekly Standard has a splashy headline today: "Obama Now Selling Judgeships For Health Care Votes?" The story turns out to be that Obama is nominating Scott Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Matheson's brother is a member of Congress whose health care vote Obama would very much like. So now he's giving his brother a federal judgeship! So, let's meet this hack:
Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985. He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006. He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990.
While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah. In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission. He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989. Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.
Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn. He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.
In other words, Obama is putting some Congressman's unemployable brother on the federal dole. McCormack, before proceeding to speculate that the nomination is intended to pay off his brother, does concede, "Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge." Come on, let's not be so naive here. Sure, he's a Stanford alum, Rhodes scholar, Yale Law School graduate, Harvard profesor, U.S. Attorney, and law school dean. Maybe that makes him "qualified" by the rock-bottom standards of this administration, even if he's no Harriet Miers.
But isn't it a little suspicious that Obama selects him now, even if the vetting process no doubt took many months? And why him? Surely there are plenty of other Stanford-Oxford-Yale-Harvard-U.S. Attorney-Law School Dean types with Democratic-friendly records to be found in Utah, right?
9 comments
Fabulous!
- roidubouloi
March 4, 2010 at 1:06pm
Although, Jonathan, you seem to confuse educational and professional excellence in law with the qualifications for elevation to the bench. What are you, some kinda ay-leetist? Had Obama chosen someone merely for ideological reliability, regardless of professional competence, I don't think Republicans would have dared to question the timing. They would have understood.
- roidubouloi
March 4, 2010 at 1:09pm
Maybe Matheson can pick up some correspondence courses from Liberty College to boost his piss-poor credentials.
- Geoff G
March 4, 2010 at 1:12pm
I wish this president would let his Chitown grubbiness come out. I mean really come out so they're as afraid of him like the 80s Democrats were afraid of Reagan.
- tnmats
March 4, 2010 at 1:17pm
The way to make Repubs afraid of him is to win. Obama with health care in the bag, Obama with Congressional majorities he can actually use, Obama basking in the glow of the most significant social welfare legislation in generations, ought to be a pretty formidable figure. Even so, whether or not this makes the Repubs fear him is irrelevant. The challenge isn't to make Repubs quake, but to keep Dem Congresspeople from quaking. Again, actually passing significant legislation is the best hope of stiffening their weak spines. It hasn't been tried in a long, long time, but who knows, it just might work.
- Geoff G
March 4, 2010 at 1:31pm
Quite right, Geoffrey.
- roidubouloi
March 4, 2010 at 3:35pm
No question, Scott Matheson Jr has excellent qualifications. But if President Obama was so above Chicago politics, why would be choose this ironic timing to appoint him? Polls show the American people don't believe much of what comes out of his mouth. If he was doing this out of pure motive, why wouldn't he distance his timing so as to not even give the appearance of corruption? When a government figure---of any political stripe---vehemently denies a charge, I always presume that accusations have hit too painfully close to the mark. Remember "Milady protesteth too much?" Shakespeare was always right about human nature. So if it LOOKS like Quid Pro Quo, perhaps that's exactly what it is. Why the photograph of George Bush and Harriet? What does this have to do with Obama's appointment, except that it's about a President appointing a Judge? Are you attempting to deflect the attention away from President Obama, trying to protect his image when he has done something that is raising questions about his motives? It's not about George. This is Obama's second year in Office. Someday you've got to judge him on his own merits.
- wisemom
March 4, 2010 at 6:37pm
Jim Matheson is a blue dog who voted against the House HCR bill in December and didn't really give a good reason other than to say "It's complicated". This appointment might have done a lot to "uncomplicate" the situation. Maybe this isn't buying a vote as much as reminding a blue dog that it's time to suit up and play for the team. Maybe Obama said to Matheson "Hey, I can appoint any number of highly qualified lawyers to this lifetime dream job. Give me a good reason to appoint your brother instead of one of the others." Perhaps a vote in favor of HCR might be a good reason. The beauty of the deal is that Jim Matheson has to vote on HCR before brother Scott gets the appointment.
- desertdog
March 4, 2010 at 7:31pm
"When a government figure---of any political stripe---vehemently denies a charge, I always presume that accusations have hit too painfully close to the mark." You know, when I read comments like this, I despair of the polity. If a government official does not deny the charge, you would say that, "they're guilty" or demonstrate "contempt for the public." If they are lukewarm in denials, you would say they are trying to get out of answering the question. As well, bear in mind that in the Republicans, you have a near-gangster like mentality of doing and saying anything, no matter how untrue or inflammatory (er, especially if it is inflammatory), in order to try to make some mud stick. So, please, intead of idiotic homespun wisdom of "where there's smoke", LOOK AT THE PROPOSED APPOINTMENT. And yes, in *that* context, the juxtaposition of the Miers woman is entirely appropriate.
- icarusr
March 5, 2010 at 10:16am