HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Serious question. If we r...

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 01:53 PM

Serious question. If we reclaim the Senate and the Presidency what are the chances that

Obama would accept a Supreme Court nomination and be appointed to that body? And, if that happens, what are the chances of overturning Citizens United?
I need some hope to hang a hat on and I figure if I'm projecting my thoughts into the future I don't want them to be thoughts of trepidation. I want to focus on thoughts of positive change.

Thinking about corporations running our government and the world lead my mind to really dark spaces where the toll on human life through corporate greed, climate change, slave wages, lack of medical care, etc. will make this pandemic look like a cake walk.

I want to unleash my mind for an exploratory walk through a different world.
What do you think? Is there a chance? Because thinking about that feels pretty good.

26 replies, 1004 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply Serious question. If we reclaim the Senate and the Presidency what are the chances that (Original post)
NoRoadUntravelled Apr 2020 OP
elleng Apr 2020 #1
stopdiggin Apr 2020 #8
redstatebluegirl Apr 2020 #2
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2020 #3
TreasonousBastard Apr 2020 #9
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2020 #10
mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2020 #25
jberryhill Apr 2020 #4
MuseRider Apr 2020 #6
mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2020 #26
rampartc Apr 2020 #5
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2020 #7
jimfields33 Apr 2020 #12
former9thward Apr 2020 #13
unblock Apr 2020 #14
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2020 #22
unblock Apr 2020 #23
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2020 #24
brewens Apr 2020 #11
unblock Apr 2020 #15
exboyfil Apr 2020 #16
aikoaiko Apr 2020 #17
RicROC Apr 2020 #18
Mopar151 Apr 2020 #19
tinrobot Apr 2020 #20
Journeyman Apr 2020 #21

Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 01:54 PM

1. Depends on whom he replaces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:07 PM

8. right. Ginsburg is probably the most likely.

and zero help there. IMO opinion .. because of the age of the justices, we are probably several administrations (at bare minimum) away from meaningful change on the court. One can always hope for the unexpected, but ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 01:58 PM

2. If that happens, I think RBG will retire and he could get that seat.

In order to overturn Citizens United we would need at least one of the conservatives to croak. They won't go willingly if the democrats are in charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 01:59 PM

3. I don't think he'd accept the offer.

Although he's taught law and certainly knows plenty of constitutional law theory, he's never been a judge and hasn't even practiced law all that much. He knows enough about the process to know what's required, and I think he would rather an experienced appellate judge (Merrick Garland, maybe?) be appointed instead.

The fate of Citizens United would depend on how the issues in the case that comes before the court are framed and argued. No case can be overturned unless there is another case before the court that raises the same issues, but there are many different possible angles and legal theories. The case would have to be one that does not require the court to overturn it using the same reasoning they used to decide it - and Citizens United actually overturned an earlier case, Buckley v. Valeo. There would have to be a different angle, and we won't know if that can happen until there is an actual case before the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:08 PM

9. Taft had a little more experience with the law, but one could argue not enough to be...

chief justice.

How did he do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:09 PM

10. Expertise and experience should count for something.

Taft had been a practicing attorney, a judge, and Solicitor General before he was President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 03:52 PM

25. This is the correct answer. IANAL. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:00 PM

4. Barack Obama has zero experience as a federal judge at any level

 


Can we stop with this notion that qualifications and expertise mean nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:04 PM

6. I blame

American Idol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 03:53 PM

26. This is also the correct answer. IANAL. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:04 PM

5. if we do not have a senate majority we will not have any judges confirmed

or maybe anything else.

they will hight obama tooth and nail, but that is no reason to appoint someone acceptable to them.

does obama want the job? i'm not sure how obama would vote on a citizens united case. are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartc (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:07 PM

7. I am certain that Obama wouldn't want the job

because he knows he's not qualified for it. I do think he'd like to see his nominee Merrick Garland get it, though. And it's impossible to know for sure how any of the justices would vote on a similar case until that case actually comes before the court. We've already had a few surprises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:14 PM

12. He is 67. By the time he would be confirmed minimum 68

Wouldn’t we want a 45-52 year old in the seat for longevity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:16 PM

13. Merrick Garland will be 68 by the time 2021 rolls around.

Zero chance a president would nominate someone that old to the SC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:22 PM

14. while not the usual qualifications, a former senior lecturer on constitutional law and former potus

is certainly reasonable qualification for the job. he wouldn't even be the first former potus (taft was the first, and so far, only).

note the all supreme court justices are routinely call on to opine on areas outside their previous experience. they get the tough questions and they get them in all areas of law, not just the possibly limited or narrow exposure they may have gotten in their previous jobs. they rely on their ability to read and understand the law and the constitution and case histories and of course they rely on clerks. obama certainly has that capability and experience.

that said, i agree that he may have plenty of reasons to decline the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:59 PM

22. I once taught con law, too, but I'm sure as hell not qualified.

And the justices are not routinely called on to opine on areas outside their previous experience. Appellate judges decide cases on the basis of the law and the evidence in the record before them. This evidence can come from the parties (but it can't be new evidence on appeal unless the issue is whether certain evidence should have been admitted in the first place) and sometimes from amicus briefs, but they do not call upon their personal expertise - at least, they aren't supposed to. So, for example, if a justice had been an airline pilot in a previous career and a plane crash case came before him/her, he/she would not substitute or inject his/her own experience in aviation to decide the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 03:17 PM

23. That's not what I meant

I mean that Supreme Court cases can arise in areas where a justice had no previous experience, e.g., maybe they never had a bankruptcy appeal while they were on the appellate court.

There are some types of cases that don't often come up in certain courts of appeal. I imagine the fact that most corporation are Delaware-based skews the case load of corporate law appeals to whichever district included Delaware.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #23)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 03:29 PM

24. OK, fair enough.

The majority of federal appellate cases are routine commercial litigation cases. Because review is discretionary, the cases that are accepted for review by the Supreme Court will necessarily involve major constitutional issues and significant but unsettled interpretations of federal statutes, and they deny cert to at least 90% of the petitions. Most federal cases are not like that, no matter what jurisdiction they're in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:13 PM

11. If we want a liberal justice, I see no reason why it should be Obama. That would be fine with

me, but there have to be many judges that would be great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brewens (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:23 PM

15. but we need to pwn the magats, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:25 PM

16. I wonder what Thomas does later this year

or even after the General Election. If the Democrats win both the Presidency and majority control of the Senate (or even one of the two). McConnell has already been trying to push older conservative judges out the door to get younger replacements.

I don't think Obama would want the nomination. It would set a bad precedent for non-judges and non-practicing attorneys to be placed on the Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:25 PM

17. Zero. I think Obama has bigger plans than SCOTUS.


There are other great legal minds who can make the same constitutional decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:29 PM

18. not Obama, nor Merrick Garland

we need Mr. Obama to be an advocate for the new Democratic majority agenda, not holed up in the Supreme Court.

Merrick Garland was a moderate (safe) choice by Pres. Obama. We don't need him now on the SC...we need a true liberal with liberal philosophies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:30 PM

19. It's better that Pres. Obama see to some delicate business...

Like some 1 on 1 time with Injustices Cavanaugh and Thomas, to convince them that a "principled retirement" is in their best interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:33 PM

20. I hate to say it, but he's already a little too old.

Average age for nomination is early 50's and getting younger.

The way things are currently set up, we want our nominees to be on the bench for 30-40 years. Unfortunately, younger is better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoRoadUntravelled (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 02:43 PM

21. I'd rather see President Obama as Secretary of State . . .

He's probably the only person in the country who could quickly repair the damage that's been done the world over by the Trumpster Fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread