Chief Justice, and former President, William Howard Taft in 1922.
Hillary Clinton was apparently wowed on Tuesday by the idea of appointing President Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Clinton responded to an audience member during a campaign event who noted the next president will likely have a lot of Supreme Court appointments, report the Des Moines Register and the New York Times First Draft blog. The speaker wondered if Obama would be one of them.
“Wow, what a great idea,” Clinton said. “Nobody has ever suggested that to me. Wow. I love that.”
Clinton said “wow” one more time “as if giving herself an extra second to think of a good answer,” First Draft says.As you will recall, William H. Taft, the nation's 27th President was later the 10th Justice of the Supreme Court. Taft had actually always preferred the law over politics, and it was the Presidency that turned out to be a frustrating aberration for him.
Now, President Obama is certainly young enough to be in the Kindergarten of the current Supreme Court, given that some Supreme Court justice are positively ancient. But why would he make a good Supreme Court justice? Well, let's check back in with Candidate Clinton.
“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.”Oh, he has credentials. And she lists them. Let's look at those, they are: 1) he can argue, and 2) he was a professor.
Eh?
Those aren't credentials for anything other than being law professor. And its sad that those the credentials for being that.
What law firms was he in? Who was he an associate for? What cases did he argue in court? What big contracts did he draft? That's the law.
Academic law isn't the law.
And that's part of what's wrong with the United States Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment