Putting President Obama on the Supreme Court is sort of a no-brainer, and I expect Hillary Clinton to seriously consider it if a slot opens up while she’s serving as president. Obviously, I am making a lot of assumptions here, including that Obama would be willing to serve on the Court.
I think the biggest obstacle would actually be concerns about Obama having to recuse himself from too many cases, especially in his first few years in service. But I don’t think there would be all that much of a struggle to get him confirmed.
Oh, yes, the right would melt down. But the conflict of interest would be their only legitimate talking point. The country as a whole would strongly approve, and there really aren’t any arguments to make against the appointment.
I do think Obama would be reluctant to take the appointment in Clinton’s first term. He’ll want to relax, see his children off to college, and get his library up and humming. Eventually, however, he’ll want a way to serve his country again.
I can totally see this happening.
I can see it happening just like I could have seen Clinton during the President’s term being nominated.
If he ends up with Scalia’s seat, I may never stop celebrating.
I’ll buy!
But I don’t think there would be all that much of a struggle to get him confirmed.
Graham and the rest of the clowns would whine to the media but vote to confirm him in the end. Why? He used to be a Senator. Sentorial comity and all that.
If this happens – as it should, he’d be a GREAT SC Justice! – our Reich-Wingers would need to wear ski-masks made out of Kevlar to keep their heads from exploding!!!
THAT, would be worth the price of admission!
What’s this Democratic fascination with appointing comparative legal lightweight politicians to the SCOTUS? What’s needed are more legal scholar heavyweights and less politicization. More John Paul Stevens, Ginsburgs and Sotomayors.
For what it’s worth, it seems to me there’s some value in having some representation on the court that includes people who have experience with the other branches of government. (Just like there’s value in having justices who didn’t go to Harvard or Yale, but that’s another issue.)
Two of the best chief justices in the court’s history are William Howard Taft and Earl Warren. Neither were legal scholars. Hell, John Marshall wasn’t either.
What made Warren and Marshall so effective was their ability as politicians to unify the Court. Not sure that can happen today, but there is no reason why having someone who has actually experienced the other side of law making and policy – the human consequences – wouldn’t strengthen the Court.
Which is why I find this comment by Marie so confusing because I’m pretty sure I saw the opposite comment before, and more in favor of the Warren set.
The Chief Justice position isn’t expected to be open anytime soon; therefore, comparisons to prior Chief Justices isn’t particularly apt.
Taft was the only prior POTUS (one term) to serve on the Supreme Court. He was not without prior government legal and judicial experience and his ambition was to become a SC justice.
Asst Prosecutor Hamilton County
Superior Court judge Cincinnati
Solicitor General of the US
US court of appeals – sixth circuit
Earl Warren:
clerk of the Judicial Committee for the 1919 Session of the California State Assembly (1919-1920), Deputy City Attorney of Oakland, California (1920-25).
Oakland County DA – 1925-1939
CA – Attorney General 1939-1943
CA Governor 1943-1953
Marshall was appointed over two hundred years ago. Would you choose a doctor or lawyer today that had the education, experience and skill sets of early nineteenth century doctors and lawyers?
I’ve often those were better thinkers than modern equivalents sometimes. Certainly better than say Ben Carson.
They probably were better thinkers because philosophy/logic were more integral to their educations than the more informational and technical driven modern education. Too be fair, there was far less information that educated men and women needed to absorb to function well two hundred years ago. An extra two to six years more formal education today isn’t adequate educational, compensatory time.
Carson is not an intellectual. He’s a medical technician — probably a highly talented and skilled one — but still a technician.
Most of them do have experience in other branches of government.
Do second the need for more law school diversity on the court. And Chicago Law wouldn’t do it for me.
But to be fair President Obama does have a constitutional law background. Not as strong of a background as the likes of Ginsburg, of course, but still a background. Conversely I never understood the calls for Secretary Clinton to go the supreme court. She was a child advocacy and corporate lawyer.
All of that said I wouldn’t say President Obama was the best we could get either. I just think he has a stronger background than Secretary Clinton.
Stronger than Scalia and Thomas for sure. Maybe not in background, I don’t know theirs, but in brains and heart.
Stronger than Thomas, but that is an incredibly low bar.
Unfortunately, Scalia’s judicial/academic resume was strong. A total of nine years as a full time law professor, Asst AG – OLC, DC Court of Appeals.
You’re right on Thomas. Low ethical bar too, sitting on cases where his wife’s clients are parties.
On that, in addition to other matters, he mimics Scalia.
I think Obama would bring intangible benefits; and he’s not a bad scholar either.
don’t understand your comment. are you saying Obama is a legal lightweight?
comparative legal lightweight
How can you argue otherwise? Didn’t clerk for a judge, no appointments/elections to AG/DA positions, no judicial experience. Not a law school professor. Do you think that judicial expertise and skill sets are acquired overnight? Clarence Thomas, not a stupid man, didn’t tick off any of those boxes either, and that’s why he was and remains unqualified.
Forget the other boxes: if Obama is a relative legal lightweight, Clarence was considered at the time as barely in the featherweight class. It was for that reason, and the strong sense that he was a purely (and cynically) political pick by Poppy, that his nom was nearly rejected. Should have been, had Joe Biden had more cojones and not been cowed by the aggressive voices arguing against opening up the investigation by the righties on the panel.
We need to look at just more than legal weightiness though. A nominee should show demonstrated respect for the Constitution, as it was written and intended, and how it has evolved, and for our democratic processes, as well as a sense of justice for the underrepresented. Otherwise, looking at things just from a pure intellectual power pov or boxes checked on a resume, we end up with people like Bork (almost), Rehnquist, Scalia and the rest.
My two cents.
didn’t he teach Constitutional Law at U of C law school? legal lightweight?
Part time lecturer.
I would love this
I agree Obama would be good on the court and I think he has the temperament – but – she would have gotten the Presidency partly because he appointed her Secretary of State. To have her turn around and appoint him to the Supreme Court looks corrupt. There are many people who would be good on the Supreme Court; there’s no particular need or advantage to appointing Obama.
I think it is arguable that retaining such a competent mind in public service at such a low cost over time would be an opportunity too good to refuse. What else is Obama going to do, Secretary-General of the UN?
Golfing in Hawaii? Sounds good to me!
Did you ever hear about the deal between Eisenhower and Earl Warren? That one was a straight quid pro quo.
Well, I don’t think it was deemed corrupt when Ike named the then-recent former GOP primary opponent Earl Warren to the Court, in what turned out to be a secret deal (or widely believed to be such) in return for Warren stepping aside in the nom process for Ike.
I also don’t agree with your premise that Hillary would have owed her presidency to O because of being named Secy of State. She would be just as well positioned — probably more so — had she stayed in the senate and sought the nomination from there. Especially with the stupid stumble turned into another faux scandal over emails, and her mishandling of Libya and Russia/Putin issues.
I mean, how was she not going to be considered the strong frontrunner had she stayed in the senate? Meanwhile, the State job has turned into a bit of a negative for her.
I agree Hillary would still have been a strong contender from the Senate; but her stint as SecState was a big boost. She got very popular while at State and some of that popularity has stuck. It’s also given her an unparalleled resume – she has experience as a very close Presidential advisor, a Senator, and a Cabinet member. It’s very rare to see that kind of diversity in positions in a top Presidential contender.
FIne, but I still think HRC would be equally strong today having been just in the senate, maybe stronger. She could have stood out as a strong advocate for a bolder health care bill, then been credited for at least the effort, and/or gone bold for a much larger economic recovery stimulus bill. Granted, on most FP issues she would have been a real mixed bag.
A very strong re-elect in 2012 — possibly a vote of 60% or more — would have further enhanced her 2016 standing.
Oh well, what might have been. She’s still on track to win the nom, but one more email nontroversy and there’s going to be grumbling from many quarters that we need to call up Warren.
I just looked up the Warren business, and it’s not the same at all. When Eisenhower was trying to clinch the nomination after coming up just short on the first ballot, Warren did not release his delegates. It was other candidates who supported Eisenhower and put him over the line.
So Warren’s appointment was not a quid pro quo, because Warren hadn’t performed a quo to be quidded.
Ah, the old days of convention fights and backroom deals. Based on the balloting it sure looks as if Ike didn’t need Warren’s delegates and wouldn’t have made a deal. But maybe a deal was made before the major fight over the Taft delegates.
Anyway — it’s long been reported that Warren and Ike made some sort of deal.
yes, appoint Obama to SCOTUS
No doubt he has the intellect, but I think he’d be bored out of his mind.
Maybe not so much bored as it isn’t his cup of tea. He would expect high standards from himself, but he not a drill-down detailed focused sort of guy. Kagan and Sotomayor are — probably why they both graduated summa cum laude — and do seem passionate about the law.
I think he can be very detail-oriented when his intellectual curiosity is piqued — which I think it would be as a Supreme Court justice — for a while. He has described himself more than once as someone who doesn’t stay interested in the same thing for terribly long. He takes on a challenge, meets it and then is looking for something more. I can’t picture him staying satisfied in the job of Supreme Court justice for long, and I get the sense he knows that about himself. And having taught con law and read numerous opinions, he no doubt has a pretty good idea of what the job entails.
I’ve been saying for YEARS that someone should appoint Bill Clinton to the court.
Not least, for giving Scalia a coronary, and opening up another seat.
Oh, the head ‘splody goodness…
Think Hillary could do that? You know, to ‘get him out of the house now and then?’
SCOTUS appointees like Sotomayor and Kagan are exactly right — extremely well qualified and young enough to be a fixture on the court for a long time. Although Ginsberg doesn’t seem to be slowing down and could outlast a few others..
If Gore’s votes in FL had been counted properly, he might well have gone on to name Bill to the Court. Would have been a far better service to his country and the world on Scotus than whatever good work he’s done for his Clinton Foundation.
As for Obama, yes it might be better if he’s on the Court, but would a former two-term president accept a mere Associate Justice position? Seems awkward. And I’m not sure this rather public pol who seems to enjoy his speechmaking and ability to occasionally rouse the crowd would like being so out of the limelight, mostly grinding away in the backroom on highly technical, and boring, legal niceties.
Obviously if the Chief Justice position were to open up in a Hillary term, then he’s the clear choice.
he might well have gone on to name Bill to the Court
Nope. Clinton lost his law license. And he and Gore more or less loathed each other by that time.
Pols make deals all the time with people they loathe/disrespect. But, yeah, that law license business would have been a major stumbling block.
Gore better than anyone knew how feckless and undisciplined Clinton was. Not a good SCOTUS candidate.
Sure glad that Obama’s team did a deep and thorough analysis of the potential SCOTUS nominees before making his nominations. Kagan is a bit too conservative but young enough that she can grow and become first rate. Unlike Clinton, Clinton, and Obama, Sotomayor and Kagan tick off enough of the right boxes for a position on the Supreme Court. The most important one is that it’s a job they’ve aspired to spent their lives preparing for.
Please point out the EXACT clause in the US Constitution that requires a “Law License” to be on the US Supreme Court, and while you’re at it, give the details of where and how Justice John Marshall got a “Law License”.
See, the USSC doesn’t “represent and advise clients”, which is what a “Law License” allows one to do.
Fortunately, a license is not required to post nonsense on the internet also, too.
You’re right, technically no such requirements or that a nominee have a law degree or even be a lawyer. But by tradition it’s been required (allowing for a few who were self-taught).
Politically however, Clinton’s law license issues would have presented a major hurdle, probably with the Monica Mess being relitigated. Possibly this could have been overcome, particularly as the Repubs inevitably would have overplayed that hand and caused a public backlash in favor of Bill.
Ideally, with some time having passed, in Gore’s second term, perhaps with a stronger Dem majority in Congress, it could have been done.
In that case, and if Bill had let it be known to Gore that he wanted it, a Pres Gore would have been reluctant but willing to make it happen. After all, Gore would have understood he owed his presidency in large part to Bill having put him on the winning ticket in 92, at a point in time when Gore’s high ambitions had been tarnished by a poor 1988 candidacy. Very few people in the run up to 1992 were calling for Gore to run again.
“Potically however, Clinton’s law license issues would have presented a major hurdle, probably with the Monica Mess being relitigated.”
Does the name “Anita Hill” ring a bell?
It will be at least 20 years before the country is ready for a Muslim Supreme Court Justice. He’ll be to old by then.
.
Taking Scalia’s spot, one can only hope.
I shudder at his ruling on secrecy and accountability issues. Would be an improvements over alito and Thomas no doubt.
I suspect the President will do his own version of the Clinton Global Initiative – different style, some overlap in issues but some new ones, so new partners.
In addition to library, think he’ll do the foundation/convening policy and philanthropy thing. And more power to him.
I don’t think that would be the best use of his talents. Obama is a public figure. That’s what he does. Maybe if Supreme Court cases were televised.
I’d love to see Obama on the Court, but would he want to spend the rest of his life in that bottle with the scorpions?
What about the Senate? Mark Kirk is up for reelection in 2016. If Obama wants to go back to the Senate, the seat is his for the taking.