I find this Washington Post story quite strange. Can it be serious? Obama might/could/should appoint himself?
Just pure speculative nonsense. There is no substance here.
ETA: Just remember that a substantial part of news is entertainment.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he gets the nod for this post from the next Democratic president. I was thinking about the other day, and almost started a thread to discuss it. I can’t see him dropping out of government after he’s done being POTUS, and SCOTUS would be a natural for him.
He wouldn’t be a terrible choice for a future Prez to nominate (assuming he eventually exits the Presidency with decent approval ratings), but I have trouble taking seriously any article that drops the idea that Obama might appoint himself to the SCOTUS.
I agree with John Mace: if a vacancy comes up in 2017, or shortly after, Obama will be in his late 50s, and could look forward to serving 25 or so years on the SC bench. Unfortunately, Justice Roberts is only a few years older than Obama, so that position is unlikely to become vacant for a long time.
It’s an opinion piece, which is a nice way of saying it’s a bunch of speculation based on nothing at all. Some points that I think are always worth remembering when reading a column:
*When you pay someone to write their opinions, they will always come up with an opinion, no matter how nonsensical.
*Something has to fill that space in the newspaper, even if it’s pure garbage.
*Pundits never put anything on the line.
*They also rarely admit it when they are dead wrong.
The piece is mostly a critique of how Obama’s temperment doesn’t suit the presidency. That may or may not be true, but he’s not going to appoint himself to the Supreme Court. It would cause an enormous bipartisan Constitutional uproar. Even his supporters would be upset if he became one justice among nine instead of the president.
Could he be on the court one day, after he leaves office? I think the odds are incredibly slim. Could he appoint himself? No. Even if he’s Constitutionally allowed, which he probably is, the Senate would never support it. They would be offended by the Constitutional issues, and here are eight words that nobody, Republican or Democrat, wants to hear:
“President Joe Biden, and Vice President Nancy Pelosi.”
He was never a judge, he isn’t even a licensed practicing attorney. The idea that he could sit on the SCOTUS is nonsense.
Please be accurate. This is not a news story from The Washington Post. It’s an opinion piece that was run on the editorial/opinion page. The Washington Post runs a number of regular columnists whose opinions differ wildly from the apparent opinions of most writers for the paper.
You don’t have to be a lawyer and a judge to be on the Supreme Court. That’s become the modern standard, and certainly critics would point to a lack of judicial experience as a reason not to confirm him, or any other nominee who hadn’t been a lawyer and or a judge. But it’s not required, and you can make a reasonable argument that there should be people with a variety of experience on the Court, not just people who have been practicing law their whole lives. Obama’s endorsed that view in the past, but I’d be surprised if he acts on it until perhaps late in his second term, if he gets that.
He taught constitutional law for years. Nothing nonsensical about it. We’ve had plenty of SCOTUS justices who were never judges.
Without trying to derail the thread, I am under the impression that there is no requirement that a justice be a former judge or licensed attorney. The Court could do well with a perspective outside of judicial group-think. We hold justices in very high esteem, but let’s face it - they make things up as they go along just like the rest of us. It would be only one vote of nine, so it is not like he would have ultimate authority.
On topic, no way he appoints himself. I can see him doing something at the UN after his presidency.
I agree with everyone saying this will NOT happen.
But boy, wouldn’t I love to see someone like Barak Obama on the Supreme Court!
If the direction that court is taking is not stopped…we are in deep shit. And it seems like many liberal/progressives are savaging Barak Obama enough to throw the next election to the Republicans…and the most conservative faction of the Republicans, at that.
We could easily end up with two or three more Scalia’s or Thomas’ if that happens.
People often said this about Bill Clinton, but it’s worth noting that people from Security Council nations (like the U.S.) can’t be secretary-general. But he could be an ambassador. It’s sort of a good job for an ex-president: they can use their diplomatic connections and credibility while not overshadowing the current president. Bill Clinton’s official job is special envoy to Haiti, and he also helped out on that North Korean journalist thing.
I know that experience as a judge isn’t a requirement, he’s certainly eligible on paper, but so am I (and I might be a dog). I was referring to the political likelihood. He’s far from a universally beloved public figure–far enough that I’d lay odds against him even if the Democrats had a supermajority.
Clarence Thomas was never a judge, and was not a practicing attorney when appointed by Bush I.
Obama is still licensed, by the way. His license is just inactive.
He was an Appeals Court Judge for 19 months before he was appointed to the SCOTUS.
He wasn’t? Wikipedia has him down as Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1990–1991) before his appointment October 23, 1991. I don’t mean to imply that this is particularly important, merely that it’s true.
That, on the other hand, is a fair point.
Lots of justices were not judges. But the story is still hooey.
He’ll never appoint himself. That would be such a radically arrogant move that even the most Democratic of Congresses would never approve it. However, if a Democrat takes the White House in 2016, I could see it happening, especially if Obama loses in 2012. He’d be a solid pick, at least if his approval numbers don’t plummet.