What would be the political fallout if Obama nominated his wife Michelle for the Supreme Court? Would it be considered nepotism, or would she actually be confirmed?
It would be very bad. I don’t expect he’d get away with it, but Washington is pretty inbred & dynastic, so maybe.
Interesting question, since as a lawyer she does have some legitimate qualifications.
Could he nominate himself some years hence?
Rush Limbaugh’s head would actually explode.
In that case, Obama should certainly go for it.
The members of the Supreme Court were all judges before being appointed. Michelle Obama has a law degree, but I’m not sure she’s even been a legal advocate. So it would be a pretty dramatic promotion.
No can criticize an Obama appointment of someone with no judicial experience if they had previously supported Harriet Meirs.
Of course, that assumes people obey the rules of logic.
From what I’ve heard, SC justices didn’t used to be former judges; that’s a fairly recent phenomenon . . . and Obama is leaning toward someone with more “real-life” experience, rather than judicial experience.
Clarence Thomas was only a judge for 1 year before going to the SC. Roberts, 2 years and Scalia 4 years. Some of the others were judges for 10 or more years such as Ginsberg.
One thing they all have in common- Ivy league law school or another very top school like Stanford or Chicago.
It would be nepotism, and the reaction would be shock and outrage from both parties. She would not be confirmed.
I’m not sure if he can, but if he did, it would be seen as an enormous power grab and a violation of the spirit of separation of powers. He would be rejected and impeachment would be discussed. I also note that to take the job, if that somehow happened, he’d have to resign as president.
Taft was chief justice of the SC for 9 years after he served 1 term as president. There was an 8 year gap between the 2 jobs when Wilson was president.
There’s no need for a nominee to have judicial experience, but the First Lady, although she has had a distinguished career, is substantially less well qualified than hundreds of others he might name. I think there would be considerable opposition to her nomination in both parties. But whether she got the job or not would depend primarily on her private interviews with various senators where she would either surprise them with perspicacity, or surprise them with the opposite, a la Miers.
President Obama can certainly appoint himself to the bench, although again, it would be politically costly. He’s popular enough that I think he’d probably get confirmed, although it would without doubt cost the Democratic nominee in 2012, esp., if it were President Biden running to stay in office.
–Cliffy
Bill Clinton seriously considered nominating Hillary to the Supreme Court, but his advisors convinced him that it would be a politically damaging move.
President Obama would face the same issues, and I’ve seen no evidence that it’s something that Michelle would even want.
Harry Reid and George W. Bush were the ONLY supporters Harriet Miers had.
Have you forgotten that it was the far RIGHT that rebelled against Harriet Miers, and forced her to withdraw? Conservatives were, with VERY few exceptions, outraged that Bush tried to give the job to a pal, rather than to someone with a conservative track record.
That’s Chief Justice of the United States. See 28 U.S. Code 1.
The Federal nepotism statute wouldn’t prohibit the President from nominating his wife to the Supreme Court, since the court is not something “in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control,” 5 U.S.C. 3110(b). Still, I believe it would be A Really Bad Idea both politically and institutionally. It looks like nepotism, even if it isn’t according to the statute. It would take the First Lady away from her not-inconsiderable duties as a public representative of her husband, White House hostess and mom. Her ability to campaign or fundraise for him would be sharply limited. She would have to recuse herself in a lot if not all of the cases in which the U.S. was a party, and if she didn’t, there would be an unavoidable appearance of impropriety.
Implicit in Obama’s candidacy last year was a critique of the dynastic pretensions of the Clintons and, to a lesser extent, the Bushes. This would reek of more of the same. It would give the Rabid Right another club with which to bash him, and I doubt even a Democratically-controlled Senate would confirm her.