The Search For The 113th Supreme Court Justice, v1: Obama Nominates Merrick Garland

Status
Not open for further replies.
alanb said:
I see where you are coming from even though I think she is a great judge based upon her decisions and conduct at oral argument. What about Goodwin Liu? While I personally do not want a Obama to get an appointment if he does I'd like to get one of our own up on the bench. Its been to long without an Asian American Justice. I'd like a Supreme Court that looks like me for a change.
Click to expand...

Technically Sri would be Asian American, but I get your point ... diversity tends to be a code-word for increasing black/hispanic presence. I actually would like to see an Indian or Middle Easterner, from a diversity perspective, as they tend to get even less inclusion than East Asians do.

Liu is absolutely Supreme Court caliber in his resume and his abilities, but he may continue to run into problems for his past strong political stance.
 
7437 said:
Maybe he is worried we will elect Angela Merkel.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa! Suddenly President-hopeful Hillary Clinton's nomination choice of one Barack Obama for SCOTUS doesn't seem so bad after all.


Hillary Clinton: Obama would be a great Supreme Court justice​

90


President Obama would make a terrific Supreme Court justice, though it could be difficult to get him confirmed by the current Senate, Hillary Clinton said here Tuesday.

The Democratic presidential candidate was responding to a question from a voter, who noted that the next president probably will have several Supreme Court appointments to make. The man wondered aloud if Obama might be one of them if Clinton moves into the White House.

“Wow! What a great idea!” Clinton exclaimed as the crowd of 450 people roared approval and applauded.

“I’ll be sure to take that under advisement,” she said. “I mean, he’s brilliant. He can set forth an argument, and he was a law professor, so he’s got all the credentials. Now, we do have to get a Democratic Senate to get him confirmed.”

She laughingly added that she wasn’t sure if he would be interested. “He may have other things to do.”

A New Yorker magazine writer asked Obama in 2014 whether he’d be interested in serving on the Supreme Court after the White House, as former President William Howard Taft did in 1921. Obama didn’t rule it out, though he voiced doubts.

“I love the law, intellectually,” he said then. “I love nutting out these problems, wrestling with these arguments. I love teaching. I miss the classroom and engaging with students. But I think being a justice is a little bit too monastic for me.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...a-would-great-supreme-court-justice/79393772/
 
Last edited:
What I don't get about Obama is how people think he is some great legal thinker. He's supposed to be some great civil rights litigator. What's he ever done? He's never litigated a 1983 claim or a BIvens action. I seriously have dramatically more demonstrable litigation wins in con law and APA law that both of the Obama's put together and they are supported to be these great jurists. And I am just a plucky underdog attorney. Obama would get embarrassed at the Supreme Court. He just does not have the background. Besides that can you imagine the confirmation process. There would be thousands of people marching in the streets to protest him.
 
Dochter said:
"Most qualified" doesn't mean a lot. Are there ideological differences that might make Obama prefer another nominee or does it have to be about race?
Click to expand...

Qualifications mean a lot. Obama isn't going to nominate someone with hardly any judicial experience, SCOTUS clerking experience, ect., just because they align with him ideologically. And if he did, they wouldn't get confirmed.

Garland is more qualified than Sri, and is seen as more liberal than him as well. As is Thomas. If it was all about ideology, Sri would be behind those two in the pecking order. Their race would be the the biggest factor in not getting the nomination. Sri would be a good candidate, but Garland and Thomas have greater judicial experience.

Experience, ideology and demographics are all factors and the biggest factors against Garland and Thomas are their race.
 
alanb said:
I see where you are coming from even though I think she is a great judge based upon her decisions and conduct at oral argument. What about Goodwin Liu? While I personally do not want a Obama to get an appointment if he does I'd like to get one of our own up on the bench. Its been to long without an Asian American Justice. I'd like a Supreme Court that looks like me for a change.
Click to expand...


I think the best constitutional
scholars should be appointed to SC, regardless of race. If that means there are 9 white men or 9 black women or 9 green trannies, if they're the most judicially qualified and they have experience, they should be the one determining the constitutionality of issues. You shouldn't get brownie points or docked points based on your demographics.

And if you want the court to represent the demographics of the country, then look at the SC missing the largest chunk of the population, white, Protestant men.
 
White men aren't underrepresented.
 
alanb said:
What I don't get about Obama is how people think he is some great legal thinker. He's supposed to be some great civil rights litigator. What's he ever done? He's never litigated a 1983 claim or a BIvens action. I seriously have dramatically more demonstrable litigation wins in con law and APA law that both of the Obama's put together and they are supported to be these great jurists. And I am just a plucky underdog attorney. Obama would get embarrassed at the Supreme Court. He just does not have the background. Besides that can you imagine the confirmation process. There would be thousands of people marching in the streets to protest him.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it also be a touch awkward to have secret service hanging out in the chambers?
 
TheBlondBomber said:
I think the best constitutional
scholars should be appointed to SC, regardless of race. If that means there are 9 white men or 9 black women or 9 green trannies, if they're the most judicially qualified and they have experience, they should be the one determining the constitutionality of issues. You shouldn't get brownie points or docked points based on your demographics.

And if you want the court to represent the demographics of the country, then look at the SC missing the largest chunk of the population, white, Protestant men.
Click to expand...
Of course but do you think Obama is going to appoint a white man period much less a Christian?
 
TheBlondBomber said:
One of the selling points for some in regards to Sri would be the fact that he would represent Hindus on the high court. By that logic, you'd want the largest religious demographic, Protestant men, represented too, right?
Click to expand...
No to all of the above please.
 
what exactly does the representation suppose to get you? because it sure seems as though everyone views people of a particular race or whatever as ruling favorably to their own kind, how fucked up is that
 
TheBlondBomber said:
I think the best constitutional
scholars should be appointed to SC, regardless of race. If that means there are 9 white men or 9 black women or 9 green trannies, if they're the most judicially qualified and they have experience, they should be the one determining the constitutionality of issues. You shouldn't get brownie points or docked points based on your demographics.

And if you want the court to represent the demographics of the country, then look at the SC missing the largest chunk of the population, white, Protestant men.
Click to expand...

I don't exactly agree, because the best constitutional scholars are often complete nutjobs. More generally, the most influential and intellectually capable judges are often too politically volatile for the job (Posner being of course the lead example .... Liu, as I mentioned above, probably getting blocked on this). What you want in my view are top-level judges, with superb resumes, who are relatively middle-of-the-road, politically.

Intellectual brilliance is a prerequisite for the job, I think, but it's not as if more brilliance is always going to lead to better performance. Law is not the most supremely intellectual of occupations, even if it leaves the other government branches in the dust in that respect.
 
alanb said:
Of course but do you think Obama is going to appoint a white man period much less a Christian?
Click to expand...


0% chance he does that. That's why I think Sri is best of the realistic options. A Loretta Lynch nomination would be laughable. Some of my professors are more qualified to be a justice than she is.
 
Zankou said:
I don't exactly agree, because the best constitutional scholars are often complete nutjobs. More generally, the most influential and intellectually capable judges are often too politically volatile for the job (Posner being of course the lead example .... Liu, as I mentioned above, probably getting blocked on this). What you want in my view are top-level judges, with superb resumes, who are relatively middle-of-the-road, politically.

Intellectual brilliance is a prerequisite for the job, I think, but it's not as if more brilliance is always going to lead to better performance. Law is not the most supremely intellectual of occupations, even if it leaves the other government branches in the dust in that respect.
Click to expand...

I agree that the bolded, not letting political ideals blind them, combined with being a great constitutional mind are the best prerequisites. Which is why Sidney Runyan Thomas or Merrick Garland would be the best candidates for nomination. Sri being the third best.
 
TheBlondBomber said:
0% chance he does that. That's why I think Sri is best of the realistic options. A Loretta Lynch nomination would be laughable. Some of my professors are more qualified to be a justice than she is.
Click to expand...

No the best option is to hold the line for 12 months. Scalia's position should be filled by Kavanugh or Paul Clement or Viet Dinh. People that would uphold his legacy.
 
alanb said:
No the best option is to hold the line for 12 months. Scalia's position should be filled by Kavanugh or Paul Clement or Viet Dinh. People that would uphold his legacy.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. But sadly, that's not going to happen.
 
TheBlondBomber said:
Garland is more qualified than Sri, and is seen as more liberal than him as well. As is Thomas. If it was all about ideology, Sri would be behind those two in the pecking order. Their race would be the the biggest factor in not getting the nomination. Sri would be a good candidate, but Garland and Thomas have greater judicial experience.
Click to expand...
Given the dynamics of everything being "more liberal" isn't actually necessarily a better thing. Besides ideology, Obama also has to consider likelihood of confirmation.
 
alanb said:
No the best option is to hold the line for 12 months. Scalia's position should be filled by Kavanugh or Paul Clement or Viet Dinh. People that would uphold his legacy.
Click to expand...
What if Sanders or Clinton win? Should they block until after the next election too?
How long is a president's term and how long are they expected to perform their duties?

If it were September or October I could see the point of delaying but Obama has about a year left.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,693
Messages
55,435,068
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top