I’d be fine with that. But as it stands today, the United States is the unquestioned world leader in assassinating people. And it’s almost all been under Obama’s watch. But hey, it’s a Democrat doing it, so it all OK, right? :rolleyes:
You do NOT want to get into a debate over Bush vs. Obama when it comes to who was the worse war criminal.
Gosh, I just finished calling out potential partisan hypocrisy (which both you and Grumman rejected, to your credit) – so now all you can think to do is turn around and accuse me of it?
Drop the G.W. Bush tangents, everybody. And if you’re going to argue about other topics like drone warfare, make sure you do it in the context of Obama as a potential Supreme Court candidate.
If anyone would like to discuss whether Obama or Bush or anyone else should be prosecuted for war crimes, go open your own thread on the topic. It is really irrelevant to a discussion of Obama as a member of SCOTUS, (beyond being a snarky way to say “No”).
[ /Moderating ]
IIRC, Thomas was only judge for a few months before being nominated. Before that he was with the Justice Department in the EEOC.
The EEOC is an independent agency and not part of DOJ. He was at DOJ in the Office for Civil Rights in 1981-82, though.
A Supreme Court judge must have respect for the rights protected by the US Constitution. His administration fought for indefinite detention without trial, in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees our right to a speedy trial. That alone demonstrates that he is unfit to hold the position, without getting into all the other shady stuff his administration has condoned.
Leaving aside whether your opinion has merit, the fact that Obama would bring all these legal controversies and entanglements to the table, let alone just plain political controversy, is proof that no president would even think of trying to nominate him. Which is probably going to be true of any former president these days.
A possible counter to this argument is that five Solicitor Generals have been appointed to the Supreme Court along with a few others in high ranking assistant positions. Their job is to argue the government’s case regardless of their personal opinions and sometimes regardless of common sense. The position of the government is constrained in many ways, not just political, and few presidents ever immediately turn around and dismantle their predecessors’ positions.
You can argue that the President makes the policy, which is different from the Solicitor General merely carrying it out. (Though Robert Bork was penalized by being denied an appointment in part because he carried out the President’s wishes in the firing of Archibald Cox after the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General resigned.) However, we know of a long history in which Presidents have looked at their policies with different eyes once out of office. You can’t assume their future behavior, and you can’t disqualify them merely because you don’t like a particular set of policies. And Grumman, I’m trying to remember when the Supreme Court declared these policies to be unconstitutional. IIRC, the objection has been mostly that they haven’t made anything unconstitutional on a grand scale. Your opinion on what is Constitutional and what isn’t lacks standing.
None of that matters greatly. Obama in particular is not qualified, and Presidents in modern times would have to ethically recluse themselves from cases too often to make them a feasible Justice, even if they had been extremely qualified before election.
I think it quite within the realm of possibility that Obama would be considered for SCOTUS. Given his record on civil liberties, this is a matter of no small concern.
Nitpick: “Solicitors General.”
I’m not sure that’s true. A former President appointed to the Supreme Court would probably not, depending on how much time had passed since leaving office, be ruling on cases directly pertaining to his or her White House decisions all that often. Taft didn’t, IIRC.
Kagan has had to recuse herself from quite a few cases since her appointment to the bench because of her involvement as SG. It’s true that Obama will probably have been out of office a while before any SCOTUS appointment, though.
I’m not sure his lack of traditional qualifications signifies; Earl Warren was basically a career politician, and yet he was the most effective justice of the 20th century. More concerning is the administration’s record before SCOTUS, as adaher notes.
If you look at the SCOTUS docket, I don’t think you’ll find that a high percentage of cases involve the President, or past president. Sure, a few high profile cases would, but the daily case load is pretty removed from presidential politics. And, if I recall correctly, the Supreme Court doesn’t have to follow formal reclusal rules, the individual justice decides which cases he or she should participate in. (I don’t, for example, think a president would have any problem sitting on all criminal cases where the “U.S.” was a party)
That’s not the modern trend in style guides.
My favorite:
Yes and no. The government is so much larger and so much more involved in everything that it’s hard to use Taft as much of a precedent. The world is utterly different. That’s why even though it’s true that a Supreme Court Justice need not recuse the resulting continual uproars - even one a term would be sufficient - over whether Obama should have or not would destroy the Court.
Not sure The Guarniad, notorious for misspellings and not a U.S. publication anyway, is a good source for a “modern trend” as to how to refer to U.S. government officials. Besides, its entry for “solicitor general” simply repeats the title and says nothing else: Guardian and Observer style guide: S | | The Guardian
That’s absurd.
What’s next “my two brother-in-laws”? “Two doctor of philosophies”? Several former secretary of states?
I’d like to see a style guide that supports your version.
Attorney generals and solicitor generals are equal parts of this modern trend, and I already cited The Guardian’s style guide.
You do understand that a trend is not an absolute, right?
I can see a future Democratic President nominating Obama for the Supreme Court. It would indeed drive the Republicans bat-shit crazy, with wild attacks and prospects of extended, hostile hearings.
So then Obama announces that he is asking that his nomination be withdrawn, to end the divisiveness and get the Justice position filled promptly.
Then the President nominates his real candidate, someone younger & more liberal than Obama, And it’s much harder for the Republicans to also attack this nominee too, so a confirmation is more likely.