Who Should Obama Appoint to SCOTUS? Hint: A Pol.
Adam Liptak has an interesting Times piece up on the fact that now every single supreme court justice is a former federal judge, a fact pointed out recently by Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts noted this approvingly. I'm not so sure. Supreme Court justices used to have more diverse backgrounds and former governors and senators and even presidents (okay one, Taft) have served on the court. I have nothing against experience from the bench although I think a life spent entirely on the bench and in the classroom is more likely to yield the likes of a Scalia. I was somewhat comforted by the fact that Roberts himself was primarily a private practice attorney before joining the federal bench. That's no guarantee that you won't be an ideologue but real world court room experience as a litigator is something worth having. I'd love it if Obama put a politician on the Court. Bill Clinton is said to have a lot of regret about not having put one on. I could think of a few including: Jennifer Granholm (being born Canadian is allowed), Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Ed Rendell, even North Carolina Governor Mike Easley. Feingold would be sort of fun, in an irritable way. There's no guarantee that any on them would be a great but if diversity means anything it should mean more than race and gender but also experience. A politician would bring that and could be a unifying force against a conservative chief justice who isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Heh. Big Dawg himself might be a good pick.
I'd love to hear him taking on Anton Scalia. Not sure he'd find Clarence Thomas worth wasting his time on, though.
February 16, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure his lack of a law license might be viewed as a problem.
February 16, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe his problem defining the word is.
February 16, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is a law license a requirement? There are many elected judges that don't have a license.
February 16, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many don't have a law license, but very few currently lack a law license because it was revoked. That's going to be the bigger issue if this actually gets anywhere (and I'm not suggesting Matt or anybody else takes the possibility seriously).
February 16, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only qualification to be a Supreme Court justice is the appointment by the President and the consent of 51 Senators, or in the current case, 50 plus Vice President Biden.
February 16, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's too old.
If it were me, I'd find some 42 year old woman - eminently qualified, and someone who could be on the bench for a half-century, and liberal as all get-out. Provoke the Republicans into denouncing the same tactics they tolerated from Nixon, Reagan, and the two Bushes. Then, when they threaten filibuster, bring up the nuclear option.
Rub their noses in ALL of their shit. ALL OF IT. But that's me.
February 16, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree that the next SCOTUS pick should not come from the ranks of the Federal Judges, and perhaps should not be a lawyer at all.
Would make for a nice Cafe discussion.
February 16, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary would be good, would she accept it though?
February 16, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was saying that way back days after Obama won she would be the ideal candidate.
February 16, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we want politicians on the Supreme Court
how about SheilaJacksonLee, EleanorHolmesNorton or Harold Ford?
February 16, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
feingold would be so perfect...
February 16, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barney Frank would be a good second nominee.
February 16, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barney would be awesome, but ideally you want someone younger so he or she will serve for a long time. That might make Feingold better.
February 16, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Lieberman!
February 16, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'd rather see a real filibuster to keep franken out of SCOTUS than the filibuster we are seeing to keep him out of the senate.
February 16, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
OUCH !!! I was thinking the same thing! Either accept him as Senator or as Supreme Court Justice! Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
February 16, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think at the same time i would demote roberts and make al the chief justice.
February 16, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's cruel!
February 16, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
spitzer!
February 16, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike Easley? Are you effing kidding me?
There must be something about the way that force bubble that surrounds the Beltway bends light that makes Easley look a lot better to the villagers than he ever looked to us. Seriously, guys, being bright enough to be governor of North Carolina does not make you bright enought to be a Supreme Court justice. You know, unless Thomas retires and opens up the intellectual lightweight seat.
February 16, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liptak's point was not just that they all were federal judges per se, but that they all were federal appeals court judges, with no trial court experience. Most of the sitting justices today had no private practice experience either, which renders them susceptible to the "no real world experience" charge, meaning both in real life and in the courtroom. In other words, they have only breathed the rarefied air of academia or the appellate courts...
February 16, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scooter Libby!
February 16, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stormy Daniels.
February 16, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Obama is so into reaching across the isles in the name of Bipartisanship, he should nominate a republican. I'm serious! Really !
I hereby nominate Patrick Fitzgerald !
All in favor say aye!
February 16, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore!
February 16, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore? That seems odd coming from you. Why Al Gore? There has to be an angle.
February 16, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he'd be a perfect replacement for Ginsberg...
February 16, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I get the angle. Duh. Very funny.
February 16, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarge, last week there was a discussion about rioting in the streets and you thought we were full of it. Go the the url below and read the article, Bad News From America’s Top Spy
url: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090216_bad_news_from_americas_top_spy/
In fact, there's a link to a U.S. Army War College monograph from November 2008 you can download that goes into some detailed depth. It may surprise you the government is scared to death about the general population rioting in the near future.
February 16, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
...actually the discussion was about Republicans rioting in the streets...you still don't need to worry...about us anyway.
February 16, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, it's a battle getting out of nursing homes en masse.
February 16, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snap!
February 16, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
February 17, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd nominate Charles Ogletree unless he's too old; can't remember how old he is but he's great.
February 16, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another prominent pol possibility: Deval Patrick.
A longshot pol possibility, but one that would be positively awesome: Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin. He's a very highly regarded professor of constitutional law at American University, a civil libertarian, and in his three years in the State Senate, he's proven himself a brilliant legislator. Incredibly smart, strongly progressive yet not strident and gets along well with a wide range of people. Reminds me a lot of Paul Wellstone -- similarly short, balding, funny-looking and high-spirited -- but with a legal background.
February 16, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd prefer Danica Patrick...
February 16, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll lay odds that Obama's first appointment will be a woman and probably a minority woman.
How about a former US Attorney -- like Carol Lam?
February 16, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care if it's a politician or not. The two essential requirements are 1) liberal and 2) YOUNG.
February 16, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ralph Nader.
February 16, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jennifer Granholm would the best of those you listed. Feingold should stay in the Senate- we need him (for 2016).
February 16, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Granholm would be perfect. Anyone who watched any part of the Kwame Kilpatrick hearing saw a very sharp legal mind that would easily bat down the arguments presented by the conservative side of the bench.
And she is young - just turned 50.
Let's hope she is the first of many Obama appointments.
(not that I wish ill towards anyone there now)
February 17, 2009 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink