Jump to content
TwiceHorn

Obama to the Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I see this notion cropping up more and more often.

While he's got the Harvard law degree and political/policy experience, he has almost zero experience as a practicing attorney and none as a judge.

I would prefer fewer "high minded" policy wonks and more practicing attorneys from the criminal defense and civil litigation bars that didn't represent huge corporations.  Also fewer government lawyers, and that's his most analogous experience. His legal experience does include "civil rights," which is in the right ballpark, but the number of years combined with political distractions, don't comfort me.

I do think judicial experience is important, also.

Maybe being a lecturer in con law is a solid qualification.  Gives him some knowledge of the universe of precedent.

Discuss.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I see this notion cropping up more and more often.

While he's got the Harvard law degree and political/policy experience, he has almost zero experience as a practicing attorney and none as a judge.

I would prefer fewer "high minded" policy wonks and more practicing attorneys from the criminal defense and civil litigation bars that didn't represent huge corporations.  Also fewer government lawyers, and that's his most analogous experience. His legal experience does include "civil rights," which is in the right ballpark, but the number of years combined with political distractions, don't comfort me.

I do think judicial experience is important, also.

Maybe being a lecturer in con law is a solid qualification.  Gives him some knowledge of the universe of precedent.

Discuss.

 

If there happens to be an opening on the court prior to November, and the Federalist Society trotted out someone that had never actually tried a case at any level and sold him (or her) to Trump and McConnell as the savior of the Supremes, you can bet your ass they would run that sucker through as quick as possible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

If there happens to be an opening on the court prior to November, and the Federalist Society trotted out someone that had never actually tried a case at any level and sold him (or her) to Trump and McConnell as the savior of the Supremes, you can bet your ass they would run that sucker through as quick as possible.

 

 

Im not really interested in some kind of partisan political discussion.  Or when he might be appointed.

I'm more interested in discussion of his qualifications.

You realize your post is whataboutism?

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I see this notion cropping up more and more often.

While he's got the Harvard law degree and political/policy experience, he has almost zero experience as a practicing attorney and none as a judge.

I would prefer fewer "high minded" policy wonks and more practicing attorneys from the criminal defense and civil litigation bars that didn't represent huge corporations.  Also fewer government lawyers, and that's his most analogous experience. His legal experience does include "civil rights," which is in the right ballpark, but the number of years combined with political distractions, don't comfort me.

I do think judicial experience is important, also.

Maybe being a lecturer in con law is a solid qualification.  Gives him some knowledge of the universe of precedent.

Discuss.

Curious.  Why do you you want more trial lawyers?  

I feel like I'd prefer all constitutional scholars and no lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he is qualified.  And I know nothing.  But I don't think he is qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Curious.  Why do you you want more trial lawyers?  

I feel like I'd prefer all constitutional scholars and no lawyers.

Because really about 80-90% of the Court's work has to do with actual legal questions that impact the administration of the courts and legal system.  The Supreme Court has a bad record with this kind of decision because they lack practical experience.

Caveat:  I thoroughly respect Barack Obama as a smart guy and a pretty good politician and leader.  His politics aren't necessarily mine, but I'm not trying to say "he's a librul faget and not qualified."  I'm genuinely interested in a discussion of the qualifications of someone without a legal/judicial career, or much of one.

 

I think a case could be made for having policy wonks, constitutional scholars, litigators, and judges on the Court.  Sort of a cross-section.  And rather than having the "female justices" or the "Jewish" or "Catholic" justices, we should maybe have the justices i the aforementioned categories.  Roughly three of each, say.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps 10 that are appointed by the executive and then those 10 vote on 5 more?  Seems like I heard that somewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Perhaps 10 that are appointed by the executive and then those 10 vote on 5 more?  Seems like I heard that somewhere. 

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of informal categories.  But of course that would require sensibility and setting aside grotesque partisan bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I see this notion cropping up more and more often..

 

From who exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. After being president a person should never hold public office again. 

i also believe immediate family members of the president shouldn’t be presidents themselves and in general should shy away from public office. 
 

Buuut our last few first families have Ignored that and I have a feeling our current one will also 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I see this notion cropping up more and more often.

First I've heard of it.

Makes about as much sense as Bill Clinton for Chairman of the Fed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

From who exactly?

I see a number of people on this board including it in their post-Trump fantasies.

Actually, it might be the same poster or two, over and over again.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Obama himself would say he's not qualified. He certainly has the aptitude, but I'd be very surprised if he has the desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Xian said:

No. After being president a person should never hold public office again. 

i also believe immediate family members of the president shouldn’t be presidents themselves and in general should shy away from public office. 
 

Buuut our last few first families have Ignored that and I have a feeling our current one will also 

Interesting thought.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I see a number of people on this board including it in their post-Trump fantasies.

Actually, it might be the same poster or two, over and over again.

 

Doesn't even sound like something he would want to do if he was qualified.  I really get the sense the Obamas like what they are doing now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Im not really interested in some kind of partisan political discussion.  Or when he might be appointed.

I'm more interested in discussion of his qualifications.

You realize your post is whataboutism?

Oh, sure I do.  My point is he's as qualified to set on the bench as whatever political party deems him qualified to do so.

And that goes for anyone, really.  GOP would never nominate Obama, obviously.  But that wouldn't stop them from doing the same RE: lack of qualifications if it happened to fit their agenda at the moment.  Same with the Dems; if they wanted to nominate Obama despite his lack of "qualifications" they would.

One time, not long ago W nominated Harriet Miers despite her having never served as a judge at any level for the Supremes and was crucified for it.  I'm not so sure a President of either party would be criticized in the same manner today for nominating someone who is "lacking" in qualifications.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pancho said:

 

From who exactly?

russians and trumpers stirring up the base. the same people post - 'share if you don't want oprah to run for president', 'share if you think whoopi goldberg should move to canada', 'share if you don't think michellle obama should run for president' 

hmmm, what's the common theme here ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, get him on the supreme court.

moscow mitch and IMpotus have fucked up the federal courts for years to come 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I care for that. I don't have a strong belief he really likes our Constitution, and would like to stretch it's meanings to places that suit his philosophy of America irregardless of the concepts in that document.

I don't think he's even qualified.  He's never even been a sitting judge has he ?

I think the SCOTUS should be the home of the absolute best judicial minds in America who have strong histories of bench time at local, sate, and the federal level at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

He knew the right answer on Citizens United, so he's more qualified than four current justices. /sbutnotreally

Having been POTUS certainly adds an intangible amount to his qualifications. Eight years of experience as the nation's top constitutional office holder has some weight, even if I'm not sure how much. Add that to his academic qualifications and I am sure there have been less qualified SC justices. Despite what the brainwashed 40 percent think, he isn't some communist. He'd be ideologically liberal relative to the current court, but that's because there are are four hyper-conservative justices. I don't think he'd rule as an ideologue. He'd probably do a pretty good job.

Ultimately I'm like OP in that I believe a SC justice should be, idk, a judge. I wouldn't be mad though.  Biden already threw red meat at the Democratic base by pledging to nominate a black woman, so at most he's second in line. Or perhaps you're thinking of the wrong Obama *braces for trolling*.

Edited by gmr548

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I don't think he's even qualified.  

There are no requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blotto said:

I'd be very surprised if he has the desire.

This too. He doesn't seem to be dying to get back into public life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I care for that. I don't have a strong belief he really likes our Constitution, and would like to stretch it's meanings to places that suit his philosophy of America irregardless of the concepts in that document.
I don't think he's even qualified.  He's never even been a sitting judge has he ?
I think the SCOTUS should be the home of the absolute best judicial minds in America who have strong histories of bench time at local, sate, and the federal level at the very least.

Did Marshall ever sit on the bench before SCOTUS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I would prefer fewer "high minded" policy wonks and more practicing attorneys from the criminal defense and civil litigation bars that didn't represent huge corporations.

My gut reaction is that state procedure issues are handled at the state level and I would tend to want someone with a philosophical bent to answer the types of due process claims that make it to the supreme court.  Trial attorneys practice in court, but the Supreme Court is only a bit about trials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No, I care for that. I don't have a strong belief he really likes our Constitution, and would like to stretch it's meanings to places that suit his philosophy of America irregardless of the concepts in that document.

Do you know those two sentences can be applied to your constitutional perspective, as well? Hell, anyone's constitutional perspective?

And the fucking document includes a 3/5ths compromise, for chrissake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He knew the right answer on Citizens United, so he's more qualified than four current justices. /sbutnotreally
Having been POTUS certainly adds an intangible amount to his qualifications. Eight years of experience as the nation's top constitutional office holder has some weight, even if I'm not sure how much. Add that to his academic qualifications and I am sure there have been less qualified SC justices. Despite what the brainwashed 40 percent think, he isn't some communist. He'd be ideologically liberal relative to the current court, but that's because there are are four hyper-conservative justices. I don't think he'd rule as an ideologue. He'd probably do a pretty good job.
Ultimately I'm like OP in that I believe a SC justice should be, idk, a judge. I wouldn't be mad though.  Biden already threw red meat at the Democratic base by pledging to nominate a black woman, so at most he's second in line. Or perhaps you're thinking of the wrong Obama *braces for trolling*.

Reagan promised to appoint a woman when he ran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One one hand I agree 100% with whoever said that you should be done with any kind of governmental role after being president but on the other hand I would like to hear the gnashing of teeth among MAGA idiots that this would cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

My gut reaction is that state procedure issues are handled at the state level and I would tend to want someone with a philosophical bent to answer the types of due process claims that make it to the supreme court.  Trial attorneys practice in court, but the Supreme Court is only a bit about trials.

Only concerned about due process claims?  Using that as an example, a justice who has only tried a handful of civil or criminal trials has no idea what due process really means for someone facing an accusation from the government.

I'd like the justices to have a little better handle on what American life is all about inside and outside the courtroom, and outside Capitol Hill,  the beltway, and the halls of biglaw firms making high six or seven figures.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I think the SCOTUS should be the home of the absolute best judicial minds in America who have strong histories of bench time at local, sate, and the federal level at the very least.

Gohmert was elected as a state district judge for Texas's 7th Judicial District, serving Smith County (Tyler, Texas) from 1992 to 2002. He was elected to three terms.[9] He first saw national recognition for a 1996 probation requirement where he ordered an H.I.V. positive man, who was convicted on motor vehicle theft charges, to seek the written consent from all future sexual partners on a court provided form notifying them of his H.I.V. status.[11] The order angered LGBT activists and civil libertarians.[11]

In 2002, Gohmert was appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry to fill a vacancy as Chief Justice on Texas's 12th Court of Appeals, where he served a six-month term, which ended in 2003.[8]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Only concerned about due process claims?  Using that as an example, a justice who has only tried a handful of civil or criminal trials has no idea what due process really means for someone facing an accusation from the government.

What point are you trying to make?  My argument is that a trial judge is not necessarily the only, or best, person to answer questions about due process.  Plus, most issues in the supreme court aren't about trial process and procedure.   A philosopher, an ethicist, or a doctor who knows what res judicata is could all make excellent Supreme Court Justices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'd like the justices to have a little better handle on what American life is all about inside and outside the courtroom, and outside Capitol Hill,  the beltway, and the halls of biglaw firms making high six or seven figures.

Look at Ronan Farrow's background. 

Do you think he'd make a good addition to the Supreme Court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Look at Ronan Farrow's background. 

Do you think he'd make a good addition to the Supreme Court?

Now your just being ridiculous.  What about one of the judges from The Voice.  They seem to be popular and are alreday judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taft was a better justice than president, so there’s at least historical context. SCOTUS appointments didn’t always go to judges but that has certainly been the trend in the last 20 or so years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Now your just being ridiculous.  What about one of the judges from The Voice.  They seem to be popular and are alreday judges.

I'm not remotely being ridiculous.  No telling what the guys resume is going to look like when he turns 40. An investigative reporter, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law School Grad.  Pulitzer Prize.   Guy has a fuckton more human experience than someone like Kavanaugh, although I doubt he raped anyone growing up.

n 2008, Farrow was awarded Refugees International's McCall-Pierpaoli Humanitarian Award for "extraordinary service to refugees and displaced people".[69] In 2009, Farrow was named New York magazine's "New Activist" of the year and included on its list of individuals "on the verge of changing their worlds".[70] In 2011, Harper's Bazaar listed him as an "up-and-coming politician".[17][71] In 2012, he was ranked number one in "Law and Policy" on Forbes magazine's "30 Under 30" Most Influential People.[72] He was also awarded an honorary doctorate by Dominican University of California in 2012.[73] In its 2013 retrospective of men born in its 80 years of publication, Esquire magazine named him the man of the year of his birth.[74]

In February 2014, Farrow received the third annual Cronkite Award for "Excellence in Exploration and Journalism" from Reach the World, in recognition of his work since 2001, including his being a UNICEF Spokesperson for Youth in 2001.[75][76] Some media outlets noted that the award came three days after Ronan Farrow Daily began airing and suggested that the award was therefore not justified.[77][78] Farrow is the recipient of the Stonewall Community Foundation's 2016 Vision Award for his reporting on transgender issues.[79] He was also recognized by the Point Foundation in 2018, receiving the Point Courage Award for his in-depth reporting on #MeToo.[80][81] In July 2018, Farrow won the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s Journalist of the Year award.[82] In 2019, he was listed among the 40 Under 40 List put out by Connecticut Magazine.[83] He was also named the Out100 Journalist of the Year.[84]

This was BEFORE he became a Rhodes Scholar:

Public service

From 2001 to 2009, he was a UNICEF Spokesperson for Youth,[13] advocating for children and women caught up in the ongoing crisis in Sudan's Darfur region[14] and assisting in fundraising and addressing United Nations affiliated groups in the United States.[14][15] During this time, he also made joint trips to the Darfur region of Sudan with his mother, actress Mia Farrow, who is a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador.[16] He subsequently advocated for the protection of Darfuri refugees.[17] Following on his experiences in Sudan, Farrow was affiliated with the Genocide Intervention Network.[18]

During his time at Yale Law School, Farrow interned at the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell and in the office of the chief counsel at the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, focusing on international human rights law.[17][19]

In 2009, Farrow joined the Obama administration as Special Adviser for Humanitarian and NGO Affairs in the Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.[17][20][21] He was part of a team of officials recruited by the diplomat Richard Holbrooke,[22] for whom Farrow had previously worked as a speechwriter.[23] For the next two years, Farrow was responsible for "overseeing the U.S. Government's relationships with civil society and nongovernmental actors" in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[17][20]

In 2011, Farrow was appointed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as her Special Adviser for Global Youth Issues[24] and Director of the State Department's Office of Global Youth Issues.[17] The office's creation was the outcome of a multi-year task-force appointed by Clinton to review the United States' economic and social policies on youth,[25] for which Farrow co-chaired the working group with senior United States Agency for International Development staff member David Barth beginning in 2010.[26][27] Farrow's appointment and the creation of the office were announced by Clinton as part of a refocusing on youth following the Arab Spring revolutions.[28] Farrow was responsible for U.S. youth policy and programming with an aim toward "empower[ing] young people as economic and civic actors."[17] Farrow concluded his term as Special Adviser in 2012, with his policies and programs continuing under his successor.[29]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Now your just being ridiculous.  What about one of the judges from The Voice.  They seem to be popular and are alreday judges.

I'm using him as an example of someone who would be good who isn't a traditional jurist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Curious.  Why do you you want more trial lawyers?  

I feel like I'd prefer all constitutional scholars and no lawyers.

Yeah....see what Twice says below.

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because really about 80-90% of the Court's work has to do with actual legal questions that impact the administration of the courts and legal system.  The Supreme Court has a bad record with this kind of decision because they lack practical experience.

Seriously, we need more people who have been in the trenches, and actually understand the real-world impact of their decisions.

But.....we decided to elect a fucking reality TV star as president.  We're putting Federal judges on the bench who have effectively never practiced law.  The concept of "qualifications" is adorable, quaint, and fucking extinct.  Sure, fuck it, why not, put him on the fucking court.  At this point, "not a raging fucking asshole" is about all I hope for in any federal position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because really about 80-90% of the Court's work has to do with actual legal questions that impact the administration of the courts and legal system.  The Supreme Court has a bad record with this kind of decision because they lack practical experience.

Caveat:  I thoroughly respect Barack Obama as a smart guy and a pretty good politician and leader.  His politics aren't necessarily mine, but I'm not trying to say "he's a librul faget and not qualified."  I'm genuinely interested in a discussion of the qualifications of someone without a legal/judicial career, or much of one.

 

I think a case could be made for having policy wonks, constitutional scholars, litigators, and judges on the Court.  Sort of a cross-section.  And rather than having the "female justices" or the "Jewish" or "Catholic" justices, we should maybe have the justices i the aforementioned categories.  Roughly three of each, say.

I agree in theory. The problem is that the Dems have nominated policy wonks. The new GOP have nominated young idealogues. The left needs some counter idealogues.

Having said that though, Obama is a policy wonk and constitutional scholar. He'd instantly be the most thoughtful justice on the court and would always lean on precedent.  He would easily rule against his political leanings if he felt it was right. Can't say that for many, if any, of the current sitting justices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

He has almost zero experience as a practicing attorney and none as a judge.  Discuss.

Not much to discuss.  This is a really dumb idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I agree in theory. The problem is that the Dems have nominated policy wonks. The new GOP have nominated young idealogues. The left needs some counter idealogues.

Having said that though, Obama is a policy wonk and constitutional scholar. He'd instantly be the most thoughtful justice on the court and would always lean on precedent.  He would easily rule against his political leanings if he felt it was right. Can't say that for many, if any, of the current sitting justices. 

The problem, as I see it, is not whether the Court is a political institution.  It has some inherent political qualities and a justice's individual biases are going to come through, and that included political leanings.

But it should not be USED as a political institution.  For most of this country's history it wasn't.  Now that it is by #bothsides, it's a shit show.

Ideologues on the Court are a problem, period.  Whichever side they come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Not much to discuss.  This is a really dumb idea.

Im not wholly opposed to non-career lawyers as Justices.  

One of my major problems with the current batch of justices, and most of them during my lifetime is that they are all of a type.

The Ronan Farrow suggestion is interesting.  He's very accomplished.  He's also hugely privileged.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem, as I see it, is not whether the Court is a political institution.  It has some inherent political qualities and a justice's individual biases are going to come through, and that included political leanings.

But it should not be USED as a political institution.  For most of this country's history it wasn't.  Now that it is by #bothsides, it's a shit show.

Ideologues on the Court are a problem, period.  Whichever side they come from.

It wasnt used that way by bothsides in the past. It needs to start being bothsides in order to correct the GOP's shit choices. 

The problem is that only the Dems are held to standards. One can't hold the scale steady when 45% of the population keeps tossing rocks on the right side. The Dems are going to have to start tossing rocks on the left side.

I'd love for the court to be what you want it to be. The problem is that, instead, we are about 2 right wing rocks away from actual revolution. This is made worse as states struggle to do what should be a federal job while we pay most of our taxes to the federal gov't which goes to military waste alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Im not wholly opposed to non-career lawyers as Justices.  

One of my major problems with the current batch of justices, and most of them during my lifetime is that they are all of a type.

The Ronan Farrow suggestion is interesting.  He's very accomplished.  He's also hugely privileged.

IDK.  I think that the track of highly academic lawyers that come from solid law schools, who clerk with good and experienced judges and who actually practice law with AV law firms is a damn good model for folks that are nominated into the judicial systems at all levels.  Importantly, the Supreme Court!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AV is one thing.  Biglaw megafirms is another.

There are countless distinguished district court and court of appeals judges that don't fit the stereotype to a T like the 9 up there now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tantric superman said:

And a terrific one it was. 

I laughed at you not getting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I don't think he is qualified.  And I know nothing.  But I don't think he is qualified.

This. Great guy. Smart, caring, thoughtful. I think he'll find a better way to continue service to his fellow man. (Can I say fellow man? Is that still acceptable?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big fan of Obama, but don't believe he is qualified for a SC spot.  Of course recent years have shown that qualified got nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

There are no requirements.

Not if he's selected, no there aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...