More on Diane Wood for the Supreme Court

As I have remarked often in this blog, I am a huge fan of Glenn Greenwald's analysis and opinions, particularly on constitutional issues.  So, yes, I have been reading his recent notes on the replacement for Justice Stevens.  From an ill-informed perspective, I had already decided--if I had my vote, it would be for Judge Diane Wood.
Apparently my vote is consistent with Greenwald's bottom-line:

She has not refrained, due to careerism and personal ambition, from issuing principled rulings (even in dissent) that she knew could be used against her (such as the series of abortion rulings which are now being used to depict her -- falsely -- as some sort of pro-abortion extremist).  That she graduated college and law school from the University of Texas (before clerking for Justice Harry Blackmun) will bring some much needed diversity to the Court; by all accounts, this background (along with her raising three children while piling up these accomplishments) causes her to bring a different perspective to the circumstances of individual litigants as compared to the typical Yale/Harvard federal judge or academician.  As a result, her judicial record evinces a steadfast commitment to ensuring (rather than closing off) justice system access for ordinary Americans when the law permits it.  I document these attributes below.
* * * * *
But the starting point for seeing why Wood is such a superior alternative -- what first convinced me -- is the University of Chicago Law Review article she wrote in early 2003, entitled The Rule of Law in Times of Stress.  This courageous analysis was designed to warn the nation about the profound threats posed to the rule of law and the Constitution by excesses in the War on Terrorism, but also more broadly to set forth her general view of the proper role of the Supreme Court when rights are being assaulted and individuals from marginalized groups are being mistreated.  By itself, this article says more than I ever could about why she is really the ideal replacement for Justice Stevens, using every standard which progressives have always claimed to embrace regarding their views of the Court.

And, Greenwald also observes this, which is an important point to note:

Whatever else is true, progressives should demand a replacement for Justice Stevens whose values, approach to the Constitution, and judicial philosophy they can know, as well as someone who has embodied the function the Supreme Court is intended to serve in our political system:  namely, one which checks and limits the other branches and safeguards core Constitutional liberties, especially when the political climate makes it most likely that those rights will be assaulted.

Yes. No more stealth candidates. Never, ever.  That should be our directive to the people we elect to represent us.  For instance, as Greenwald points out, we know exactly what Wood thinks about the rule of law even during times of stress: she has written about it, and she asserts the supremacy of the rule of law.  Wood writes: In a democracy, those responsible for national security ... must do more than say "trust us, we know best"
I am all the more for Judge Wood--just for this sentence alone :)