And supposing an unknown Democratic POTUS is elected in 2016, would the nomination passing be impossible? I believe it’s 50 votes to pass, and “support” from 60 senators to dodge a filibuster, IIRC.
The Constitution doesn’t set out requirements for becoming a Justice on the Supreme Court, so technically, he’s as qualified as anyone else from that point of view.
I know he taught Constitutional Law at one point, went to law school at Harvard where he was on Law Review (might have been the editor, or president, or whatever the top dog is called there). Dunno how much actual law practice he’s done.
(But…would any foreseeable Republican Senate not filibuster the nomination? Come on! Zero chance.)
Has anyone ever made the big court without being a judge elsewhere first?
Earl Warren.
41 justices (those 40 and Elena Kagan) had no prior experience as judges.
Right. To put this in context, Kagan is the 112th Justice to sit on the Court. IOW, over a third had no prior judicial experience.
Even if a bunch of them haven’t had judicial experience, I still think they should. I’m in general a fan of Obama, but I wouldn’t think him an appropriate pick.
Hell no.
Oddly enough, I disagree. As a citizen I would oppose his nomination because he does not favor the interpretation method I do, but as a senator, if he were nominated by the sitting President I would confirm.
Wow, what a surprising useful comment perfectly in line with your normal, witty, thoughtful contributions.
As far as Obama being qualified, I think he would be. Especially if he spend a few post presidential years in the legal field in some capacity. I think he would probably do a good job, but I also think there are a number of people “in line” ahead of him on both sides who could make a more compelling case for nomination.
He’d never get confirmed, but you could make a very good argument that he’s qualified. I agree with Bricker that it would be better if there were a greater breadth of experience represented on the court. Basically everyone on the Supreme Court in recent years has been a judge with a law degree from Harvard or Yale (although Obama would only break with one of those trends).
As already noted, Kagan was never a judge.
From a legal and constitutional perspective, he meets all the qualifications. So do I, as a matter of fact, despite never having attended a day of law school.
His chances of being confirmed by the Senate are a lot better than mine, but still a political longshot. Theoretically justices are supposed to be non-partisan and it is difficult to imagine how any former president in this era could achieve the necessary bipartisan support for confirmation. I think it could only happen again if a party manages a filibuster-proof majority.
Yes, I saw. That’s one justice out of nine - and like Obama she has a JD from Harvard. That would create a really interesting dynamic on the court. I think Obama may have been the first president to be sworn in by a Chief Justice he had personally voted against confirming; maybe you can imagine what things would be like if he were serving alongside two justices he’d voted against (Roberts and Alito) and maybe three he nominated (Sotomayor, Kagan, and in the next term a likely replacement for Ginsburg).
What I’d rather see is during Obama’s second term, Chief Justice Roberts decides to retire and take up bass fishing and Obama nominates Hillary to be CJ.
Honestly, I’d rather see Obama as a Justice or even Chief Justice rather than POTUS. His leadership when it comes to Congress is wanting, mainly because he is a scholar of politics and was not accustomed to what the job demanded back in 2008. The bench is the perfect place for a person like him. The Supreme Court seems to be the perfect place for political scholars that can’t quite cut the mustard, or don’t want to, in a Congressional or Presidential office.
I agree with you on the he’d be perfect part, not the rest.
His greatest weakness as president is his instinct is to govern by consensus. (Too willing to compromise with Republicans)
Reaching consensus on the contentious issues in the front of the court is the very best way to run the court. Brown v Board of Ed would not have had the power it did to reshape America without being a unanimous decision.