Also, it should have to stay behind after session and clean the erasers.
Obama’s mere existence outrages the GOP and the Tea Party. Short of resigning and handing the keys to the Oval Office to Reince Priebus on his way out, there’s nothing Obama can do that will not have this effect. As such, it can safely be disregarded.
To be fair, an academic understanding of constitutional law is very different to an applied one acquired via a career on the bench. Personally I think Obama would be a lukewarm Justice at best (although anyone would have to be better than Clarence “Silent Clar” Thomas) but the whole “he has no understanding of constitutional law” RW talking point is pure-D hogwash.
The temptation to turn the Supreme Court into a reality show is very great here, but we must resist for the greater good of the nation…
Yes he should as he will be in office for the next 11 months, realistically the seat should not remain vacant that long. If it were two months before the new president being inaugurated, that would be different.
Simply put the sitting president should appoint the president.
Aside from its obvious race-baiting, this post does not even appear to address the topic of the thread.
It looks very much like trolling. Knock it off.
Yeah, the guy that taught constitutional law doesn’t have any understanding of it. There is a difference between exercising executive power in the absence of congressional action and ‘having no understanding of constitutional law’ EVEN IF the executive action is eventually struck down.
I would say that Obama’s understanding of constitutional law “evolved” from when he was in the Senate to when he got to the WH. Hence, you see positions taken as president that contradict statements made about presidential authority by Senator Obama. He understands the constitution alright, he’s just “flexible” about how to interpret it. Not that he’s alone in that situation, but it does frankly make me think less of him than I’d like to.
Way back in law school, I remember folk discussing how well “those who can’t do, teach” applies to law school faculty. Always thought it odd that professors were not expected to have SOME experience practicing law. Of course, that fits in well with the traditional law school preference against practical knowledge.
I’ve read some articles I find persuasive suggesting greater diversity is desirable on the Supremes. Right now they all were judges, and went to a very limited number of schools. HEck, the majority of them are/were Catholic. It could be beneficial to have the experience/input of someone who had significant experience as an elected official or a businessman.
I agree that a diversity of experience is important. But I would put politician and businessman at the very bottom of the list. If you laid out a map of experiences, with different experiences far apart and related ones close together, the experience of being a top-flight lawyer would be in Cincinnati, being a politician would be in Cleveland, and being a businessman would be in Pittsburgh. Being an economist would be in Orlando. Being a black man would be in Mexico City. Being a prison guard would be in Moscow. Being a scientist would be in Caracas. Being poor growing up would be in Dakar. I’d rather have some people in the far-flung distances of the map.
And they exist, even among lawyers. Of the two top-mentioned names right now, one was born in India (and is Hindu) and the other is a black man. Sri Srinivasan is also a Stanford MBA.
I think that if Sanders wins and the Democrats take the senate back, the Republicans will hurry to confirm a moderate nominee as quickly as possible :D.
Because your experiences shape your perception and your intuitions. As a general rule, having any significantly different experience is a good thing. Living in India for a couple of years as an infant doesn’t really matter, but having your parents be first-generation immigrants certainly does. It colors the way you think about all kinds of topics on which the Supreme Court is asked to opine.
OK, but that’s a different argument. Given how many Americans are immigrants, I can see where having immigrant parents might give a certain perspective. I thought you were putting an emphasis on being born outside the US.
I think he’s arguing for diversity of background. That may or may not be a good idea. I lean towards slightly good, myself, so long as other qualifying factors are including - and Srinivasan certainly seems to fill that role pretty well.
Another interesting factor here. Of the remaining justices we have three born in the 1930s in Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer. One more, Thomas, was born in the 1940s.
That means that however this current fight turns out the next President may still be able to appoint three justices. And given the justices involved it could be enough to swing the court strongly in either direction.
In other words, hang on. We’re going to be hearing about this for a while.
For fun, ages of justices at the end of one term, then two terms of the next President:
She worked briefly in the private sector before joining the faculty at the University of Chicago.
The more interesting tidbit about Kagan’s background is that she was nominated to the Court of Appeals in June 1999, and was NEVER GIVEN A HEARING BY THE SENATE. Orrin Hatch & Company left her in limbo for 18 months, until Bill Clinton left office and her nomination expired.
I guess Republicans like to take the long view in filling judicial openings.
Getting to the issue at hand, how is this likely to play out. The initial phase is already pretty much declared. Obama will make a nomination soon, and in all likelihood it will be someone fairly moderate (with a left lean) and an impeccable resume. The Republican senate will not allow this nomination to proceed, by whatever means necessary.
Then what? Any predictions? Not what should happen, but what will happen.
I could vaguely agree with ‘is’ the baby of the bunch, but not ‘was’. Kagan was 50 when she assumed office, as was Roberts. The baby of the bunch was Thomas, who was 43.