Obama for Supreme Court Justice?

[Rhea]

Someone posted this today as part of a joke (How the Conservatives will lose their shit when President Clinton nominates him for Supreme Court), but it was interesting to think about.

I'd be against it, despite thinking that Obama is an incredibly thoughtful (in the academic sense) person with a lot of knowledge in Constitutional Law.

Because I think he's too much of a compromiser. It works for statesmanship, but not for Supreme Court decisions, I think?
I was going to say also because I wonder how much real-world breadth he has. But then, I thought, maybe he has a good amount.


Anyway, was looking for further discussion and thoughts on the hypothetical.

 

[Togo]

Traditionally thought to be a job for idealists. Obama is a politician who has been pragmatic and compromising.

So he doesn't fit the traditional profile. Whether that's a problem depends on how you think these people should be chosen.

 

[Terrell]

One cannot predict that he'll be as willing to compromise on the Supreme Court as he was as a President. The situation is different there. Supreme Court justices aren't as subject to the political whims of society as the President. Presidents have to worry about re-election, and what the Congress is willing to send to his desk. He also has to worry more about who controls the Congress with respect to getting any of his agenda even heard, much less passed. In addition Supreme Court justices sit for life, unless they retire or are impeached & removed. I doubt that the 2/3 votes will be there in the Senate to remove a justice simply because the party in control of both houses of Congress, likely doesn't have the votes. In addition they usually understand that doing so would open the door to retaliation by the other party, should they be in the same position.

 

[jonatha]

Traditionally thought to be a job for idealists. Obama is a politician who has been pragmatic and compromising.

Kind of like Earl Warren. Or William Howard Taft.

 

[Petrel]

Has he ever been a judge?

 

[Derec]

Has he ever been a judge?

Not necessary. William Rehnquist was never a judge for example. In fact, the Constitution doesn't even specify that the justices must have legal training at all. In that sense it is similar to requirements for the Papacy. As a practical matter most justices in recent history have been judges though.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The brilliant legal scholar that Obama is thinks that the executive, without any interaction at all with the judicial, is able to strip a person of his citizenship and then execute him.

No judicial involvement at all. No court case to determine if the Anwar Al-Awlaki had indeed renounced his citizenship. No court case to determine if he was guilty of the crimes he was accused of. No court case to determine if those crimes merit execution. No court case to determine if those crimes merit stripping his citizenship.

That's someone you want on the Supreme Court?

Yep, because he's a Democrat and that means what he does is good even when it isn't good.

 

[Ford]

The brilliant legal scholar that Obama is thinks that the executive, without any interaction at all with the judicial, is able to strip a person of his citizenship and then execute him.

To be fair, Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't stripped of his citizenship. He was just blown up.

I do find it fascinating that folks on the right treat Anwar Al-Awlaki as somewhat of an anti-Obama cause celebre while at the same time almost completely ignoring the fact that the previous administration basically made up out of legal thin air the justification for holding anyone named anything remotely like "Abdul" or "Muhammad" in a corner of Cuba indefinitely.

But hey, they're not citizens, so fuck those guys, huh?

 

[Arctish]

The brilliant legal scholar that Obama is thinks that the executive, without any interaction at all with the judicial, is able to strip a person of his citizenship and then execute him.

To be fair, Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't stripped of his citizenship. He was just blown up.

I do find it fascinating that folks on the right treat Anwar Al-Awlaki as somewhat of an anti-Obama cause celebre while at the same time almost completely ignoring the fact that the previous administration basically made up out of legal thin air the justification for holding anyone named anything remotely like "Abdul" or "Muhammad" in a corner of Cuba indefinitely.

But hey, they're not citizens, so fuck those guys, huh?

I know you meant that sarcastically but that's exactly right.

Non-citizens outside the United States don't have Constitutional rights. But American citizens do, even when they're outside the United States, and even when they're planning or carrying out a crime. The incarceration of non-citizens in Guantanamo, a place specifically set up to be outside the reach of Constitutional law, is a national disgrace. But the execution of an American citizen by the US government without trial or review is a direct violation of the Constitution. That's worse, because if a President can order the execution of a citizen merely suspected of a crime - not formally accused in a court of law, not having the presumption of innocence, and having no opportunity to mount a defense - there is no limit to what he can do to citizen and a non-citizen alike.

Jason Harvestdancer is right to point out the danger of incorporating that sort of political theory into Supreme Court rulings.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The brilliant legal scholar that Obama is thinks that the executive, without any interaction at all with the judicial, is able to strip a person of his citizenship and then execute him.

To be fair, Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't stripped of his citizenship. He was just blown up.

I do find it fascinating that folks on the right treat Anwar Al-Awlaki as somewhat of an anti-Obama cause celebre while at the same time almost completely ignoring the fact that the previous administration basically made up out of legal thin air the justification for holding anyone named anything remotely like "Abdul" or "Muhammad" in a corner of Cuba indefinitely.

But hey, they're not citizens, so fuck those guys, huh?

It's not fair, and the neocons have no problem with blowing him up.

As someone who survived the death of the peace movement (RIP January 19, 2009) and remained as opposed to war after that date as before (I'm looking at you all those progressives who stopped hating war) I find the implication you are making offensive. Almost as offensive as your rather curious assertion that I'm somehow part of "the right" and would have supported this had Bush done it - something not found in my posting history.

When he was first "blown up" I protested that somehow the executive now had the power to just assassinate US citizens without a trial. Progressives and Neocons (but I repeat myself) said "oh no, this isn't blowing up a US citizen, he's not a citizen." Seriously, that was the defense. Pressing the conversation further there was confusing explanations about how he had either renounced his citizenship or had it stripped from him. Over and over I asked "but where was the court trial to prove the point you are arguing?" Over and over I got how Obama took care of everything.

If you're going to broad brush and say "since you don't like Obama you must have liked Bush" then I suggest you try very hard to find out that there are more than two options out there. I was shoulder to shoulder with anti-war liberals until the day Obama took the oath of office. Where are your kind now? Loving the war because someone else is running it. No wonder you don't see any problem with Obama blowing up Al-Awlaki. Bet you'd have a problem if Bush did it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Have us presidents become supreme court justices before? I dont know the history.

 

[Derec]

Have us presidents become supreme court justices before? I dont know the history.

William Howard Taft, he of the (rumored) oversized White House bathtub.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you're going to broad brush and say "since you don't like Obama you must have liked Bush" then I suggest you try very hard to find out that there are more than two options out there. I was shoulder to shoulder with anti-war liberals until the day Obama took the oath of office.

We were told to shut up and sit down by the Obama Admin. Where were you when that happened? Also, it may be worth nothing that Obama hasn't started any new wars. You might remember that W invaded Iraq and occupied it. So there is an apples / oranges comparison there. Liberals are still against the drone strikes. Against ridiculous military efforts with little design to them.

No wonder you don't see any problem with Obama blowing up Al-Awlaki. Bet you'd have a problem if Bush did it.

That's a strawman. It is typically all you have in your arsenal.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

We were told to shut up and sit down by the Obama Admin. Where were you when that happened?

He must have only told Democrats, since I didn't get the memo.

Also, it may be worth nothing that Obama hasn't started any new wars.

Yep. He didn't take action in Libya. He didn't expand Afghanistan to include bombing Pakistan. He didn't do any bombing in Yemen. He didn't try for action in Syria only to be blocked by the UN and by Congress.

Interesting how his failure to get what he wanted on Syria is counted as one of his successes.

Liberals are still against the drone strikes. Against ridiculous military efforts with little design to them.

So against them they say nothing about it.

No wonder you don't see any problem with Obama blowing up Al-Awlaki. Bet you'd have a problem if Bush did it.

That's a strawman. It is typically all you have in your arsenal.

As you might have noted, I was responding to Ford telling me that my opposition to Obama meant I must have been some sort of Bush supporter. Wait, you can't have noted it because you didn't call him on that strawman. Or maybe you did notice it but didn't care because that strawman was used in defense of the Noble-Prize-Winning Warmonger whose wars don't count because he's of the "good" party.

And what do YOU think of the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He must have only told Democrats, since I didn't get the memo.

Don't blame your ignorance on liberals.

Also, it may be worth nothing that Obama hasn't started any new wars.

Yep. He didn't take action in Libya. He didn't expand Afghanistan to include bombing Pakistan. He didn't do any bombing in Yemen. He didn't try for action in Syria only to be blocked by the UN and by Congress.

You do understand what the word "war" means right? Any and every single military action does not automatically equate to being a "war".

Interesting how his failure to get what he wanted on Syria is counted as one of his successes.

He got the WMDs (actual WMDs) to be destroyed without dropping a single bomb. That isn't a bad outcome. What he wants to allegedly do now, ie, supporting certain moderate militia groups in Syria seems tantamount to extreme absurdity.

Liberals are still against the drone strikes. Against ridiculous military efforts with little design to them.

So against them they say nothing about it.

What are you looking for?

No wonder you don't see any problem with Obama blowing up Al-Awlaki. Bet you'd have a problem if Bush did it.

That's a strawman. It is typically all you have in your arsenal.

As you might have noted, I was responding to Ford telling me that my opposition to Obama meant I must have been some sort of Bush supporter. Wait, you can't have noted it because you didn't call him on that strawman.

Ford's own post certainly did not imply in way manner or form, condoning the assassination.

Or maybe you did notice it but didn't care because that strawman was used in defense of the Noble-Prize-Winning Warmonger whose wars don't count because he's of the "good" party.

And what do YOU think of the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki?

I've already stated what I felt about that. If you don't bother to actually read what people post here, you shouldn't be wasting your time.

 

[laughing dog]

I think Obama as a Supreme Court Justice is an excellent idea. Then he can enshrine sharia law in the USA.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think Obama as a Supreme Court Justice is an excellent idea. Then he can enshrine sharia law in the USA.

I don't know what to expect from an Obama Justice. He isn't really allowed to lead the country by a hyper partisan Congress. So other than a small number of actions, it is hard to know what he'd actually do, other than enshrine Sharia law and require spinning rims on all cars.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You do understand what the word "war" means right? Any and every single military action does not automatically equate to being a "war".

Sure. I know that it means "Oh that doesn't count so you can't say Obama did anything wrong that doesn't count DID YOU HEAR ME THAT DOESN'T COUNT STOP COUNTING IT THAT DOESN'T COUNT YOU ARE ONLY COUNTING IT BECAUSE YOU ARE A RACIST!!!!!!!"

Ford's own post certainly did not imply in way manner or form, condoning the assassination.

Ford's post implied that my opposition to the assassination was due to my opposition to the current office holder and support of the prior office holder. I didn't say that Ford's post implied I condoned it. That part comes from your imagination.

I've already stated what I felt about that. If you don't bother to actually read what people post here, you shouldn't be wasting your time.

A quick scan of this thread reveals nothing about your feelings on that subject. But your fierce defense of Obama suggests where your feelings might be on this subject.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure. I know that it means "Oh that doesn't count so you can't say Obama did anything wrong that doesn't count DID YOU HEAR ME THAT DOESN'T COUNT STOP COUNTING IT THAT DOESN'T COUNT YOU ARE ONLY COUNTING IT BECAUSE YOU ARE A RACIST!!!!!!!"

So you have nothing, but just resorting to an extremely tired strawman.

I've already stated what I felt about that. If you don't bother to actually read what people post here, you shouldn't be wasting your time.

A quick scan of this thread reveals nothing about your feelings on that subject.

The OP is about the hypothetical of Obama becoming a Supreme Court justice, not about the killing of an American citizen abroad. If you go searching through the thread about my positions on recent court cases or the World Cup, you'd fail to see those thoughts shared here as well, as they'd be off topic.

But your fierce defense of Obama suggests where your feelings might be on this subject.

You love hyperbole, don't you.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A quick scan of this thread reveals nothing about your feelings on that subject.

The OP is about the hypothetical of Obama becoming a Supreme Court justice, not about the killing of an American citizen abroad. If you go searching through the thread about my positions on recent court cases or the World Cup, you'd fail to see those thoughts shared here as well, as they'd be off topic.

So how do you feel about appointing to the SCOTUS someone who believes the President has the power to execute US citizens without a trial?

That puts it back on topic and makes it difficult for you to equivocate around the answer.