Obama for Supreme Court Justice?

[Ford]

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.

Just so we're clear, I was implying no such thing. I replied to your assertion that Alwaki had been "stripped of his citizenship" and then proceeded to make a general statement about those on the right.

You took that statement, assumed I was talking about you personally, and then set about establishing your street cred as a peacenik and a person who "survived the death of the peace movement," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. I guess when you're building an elaborate straw man structure you can't be bothered with details.

In any case, and back on topic, two points:

1. Assuming he wanted the job, Obama would be one of nine justices on the court. Which direction he'd swing the balance towards is more important than narrowing in on one decision he made while President. They are two very different jobs. The court plays the long game.

2. I'd balance out the Alwaki case with that of the Benghazi suspect, Ahmed Abu Khatalla. If Obama is really a fearsome tyrant who will happily drone strike anyone without a whiff of a trial, then what's this Khatalla guy doing in court? If the narrative of Obama as a blowin'-up-terrorists extra judicial killing machine is to believed, then Ahmed should be buried under a pile of rubble, not sitting in a cell in America.

 

[Arctish]

In any case, and back on topic, two points:

1. Assuming he wanted the job, Obama would be one of nine justices on the court. Which direction he'd swing the balance towards is more important than narrowing in on one decision he made while President. They are two very different jobs. The court plays the long game.

His one vote would be crucial in times when the court is divided.

Remember Robert Bork? He would have been just one Justice among nine, but Bork on the Court meant a lot of "settled" law wouldn't be quite so settled anymore. Congress was spooked by the very thought, and so were a lot of citizens.

2. I'd balance out the Alwaki case with that of the Benghazi suspect, Ahmed Abu Khatalla. If Obama is really a fearsome tyrant who will happily drone strike anyone without a whiff of a trial, then what's this Khatalla guy doing in court? If the narrative of Obama as a blowin'-up-terrorists extra judicial killing machine is to believed, then Ahmed should be buried under a pile of rubble, not sitting in a cell in America.

Hyperbole, much?

No one is saying Obama is a killing machine. We're saying Obama's ideas regarding the powers of the Executive Branch include the notion the President can order the assassination of American citizens. That's something that should worry people. We rely on the Supreme Court as the ultimate check on Congressional and Executive power. It's there to insure that laws and government actions meet the requirements of the Constitution, including the rights of citizens to their day in court. If the Supreme Court ever becomes an enabler in circumventing the Constitution, we're screwed.

 

[Ford]

No one is saying Obama is a killing machine. We're saying Obama's ideas regarding the powers of the Executive Branch include the notion the President can order the assassination of American citizens.

If I remember the reasoning correctly, the administration contended that Alwaki was an operational leader of a terrorist organization ostensibly at war with the United States and was therefore a legitimate military target. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it is a stretch to imply that because of this one case Obama generally supports the idea of assassinating American citizens on a whim.

Furthermore, I think it is a stretch to say that based on this one case, the court - with Obama as a swing vote - would set such a precedent.

Of course there are a lot of assertions of executive power over the last decade that deserve scrutiny, but these are things which the current court should be dealing with, not some hypothetical one in the future which includes Obama. That would be a case of closing the barn door long after the horse had bolted.

 

[Arctish]

No one is saying Obama is a killing machine. We're saying Obama's ideas regarding the powers of the Executive Branch include the notion the President can order the assassination of American citizens.

If I remember the reasoning correctly, the administration contended that Alwaki was an operational leader of a terrorist organization ostensibly at war with the United States and was therefore a legitimate military target.

Yes, they used the Bush Administration's "enemy combatant" legal theory to justify assassinating a citizen. But the "enemy combatant" legal theory is an end-run around certain Constitutional protections, and I think by now everyone realizes that.

Imagine if Richard Nixon had the power to label people "enemy combatants" and unleash G. Gordon Liddy on them. He already had an enemies list, and there was a war going on ......

Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it is a stretch to imply that because of this one case Obama generally supports the idea of assassinating American citizens on a whim.

No one said he did it on a whim. But another President might. If you give that power to one President, you give it to them all. I don't know how much I can trust future Presidents to use it wisely. Do you?

Furthermore, I think it is a stretch to say that based on this one case, the court - with Obama as a swing vote - would set such a precedent.

Of course there are a lot of assertions of executive power over the last decade that deserve scrutiny, but these are things which the current court should be dealing with, not some hypothetical one in the future which includes Obama. That would be a case of closing the barn door long after the horse had bolted.

True, we're just speculating here. But even though I voted for Obama twice, and generally approve of his performance, I know that he denied an American citizen his rights guaranteed under the Constitution and for that reason I think Obama is unfit for the office of Supreme Court Justice.

Although, I gotta admit the thought of how the hard-core right and the birthers would react makes me smile.

 

[Ford]

No one said he did it on a whim. But another President might. If you give that power to one President, you give it to them all. I don't know how much I can trust future Presidents to use it wisely. Do you?

Again, the implication here is that giving an individual President the ability to designate one person as a legitimate target and act upon that authority will lead to any future President being able to assassinate random citizens. That's a stretch.

That said, I'd argue Presidents have long had this authority to some degree. If an American citizen had joined the Luftwaffe in WWII and started blasting away at B-17 bombers over Berlin, a trial in US civilian courts would be nice, but any US Army Air Corps pilot that got the guy in his sights would be perfectly justified in shooting him down.

Of course, that was a "declared" war, which brings me to another point. While we may argue over the details of this one case, the truth is we have long since handed over the war making power to the Executive Branch, and that's a much larger problem which Congress needs to address but frankly never will.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That said, I'd argue Presidents have long had this authority to some degree. If an American citizen had joined the Luftwaffe in WWII and started blasting away at B-17 bombers over Berlin, a trial in US civilian courts would be nice, but any US Army Air Corps pilot that got the guy in his sights would be perfectly justified in shooting him down.

Of course, that was a "declared" war, which brings me to another point. While we may argue over the details of this one case, the truth is we have long since handed over the war making power to the Executive Branch, and that's a much larger problem which Congress needs to address but frankly never will.

I'd say the difference is less "declared war"and more "currently actively engaging in hostilities." If someone is actively shooting at you, you can shoot back. Anwar Al-Awlaki, assuming everything Obama said about his hostility is true, doesn't pass that test.