February 21, 2010
Hey! Wouldn't Obama make a great Supreme Court Justice?
Obama for the Supreme Court? Jeffrey Rosen of the Washington Post:
He's too detached and cerebral . Too deferential to Congress. Too willing to compromise . And he's too much of a law professor and not enough of a commander in chief, as Sarah Palin recently admonished.Yes..his "legal reasoning, his pragmatism, his temperament" make him an ideal candidate? How absurd.
These are some of the qualities for which the president, rightly or wrongly, is criticized. They are also the qualities that make him well suited for another steady job on the federal payroll: Barack Obama, Supreme Court justice.
[...]
Obama's academic credentials for the court -- including serving as president of the Harvard Law Review and teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago -- are obvious. But it's his even temperament and low boiling point that seem tailor-made for the court at this polarized moment. Obama's patient courtship of the vain and wavering swing votes in the Senate (such as Joe Lieberman) during the health-care debate, for example, is ideal preparation for courting the vain and wavering swing vote on the court (Justice Anthony Kennedy). And Obama's detached and judicious disposition would equip him to challenge the conservative hothead, Scalia, without descending to his name-calling
I am sure I am not alone in failing to see how Barack Obama measures up to these qualities. The "smackdown" alone that Rosen mentions reveals he does not have the temperament, and then there are plenty of instances of his rush to judgment ("the cop acted stupidly") and his hectoring ("I am the only one standing between you and the pitchforks") and straw man arguments, his hyper-partisanship, his blame-shifting; and his history of misunderstanding the law.
He is on record of complaining about the restrictions the Constitution places in the way of politicians. "Empathy" does not make a great Supreme Court Justice. I could go on about one of the most ridiculous wastes of ink I have yet seen in the opinion pages of the Washington Post. He has overseen at the Department of Justice one of the most wrong-headed approaches towards interpreting and enforcing the laws of the United States and has refused to replace the Attorney General who has made one legal mistake after another.
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- The Russia Tariff Canard
- When The Government Brutalizes Children
- Trump’s Global Bunker Buster Day
- Phone-Free Schools: Banning Phones to Protect Schoolchildren
- Out-of-Control Courts
- ‘Democracy,’ Establishment Style
- The Truth About Trump’s Tariff Revisions … It’s All About 'The Art of the Deal'
- Remember, MAGA: This is No Time to Go Wobbly
- The Hill of Lies
- Trump’s Tariff Play: The Art of the Economic Reset
Blog Posts
- Rep. Jasmine Crockett calls on illegals to pick her cotton because 'we done picking cotton'
- Two…men…advance to women’s pool championship
- Let’s talk about the economic collapse and recession that aren’t happening
- Where were all the ‘protesters’ during Biden’s years in office?
- Progressivism is an auto-immune disease
- Time to tariff up: Stop funding our own collapse
- Major victory from SCOTUS in Trump deportation case
- Mississippi on the move
- We called him ‘Daniel el travieso’
- The Supreme Court affirms Justice Boasberg lacked jurisdiction over Trump’s deportation decision under the Alien Enemies Act
- DOGE spirit moves downstream -- to new U.S. Attorney who vows to probe the billions lost to L.A.'s homeless industrial complex
- A majority of self-identified leftists think political assassination is a societal good
- One Democrat has an idea for winning: a new ‘Contract with America’
- Kash Patel promotes an FBI agent who called J6 patriots and moms at school board meetings ‘terrorists’
- Tariffs threaten to put the nail in the ‘green’ energy coffin