“The choice would be electrifying,” writes Michael Sean Winters at “In All Things,” the group blog of America, the Catholic (Jesuit) weekly.
The biggest objection to putting Al Gore on the Supreme Court, I assume, would be that he’s not a lawyer. But is this really a bug rather than a feature? Gore spent sixteen years in Congress, where he helped make the laws, and eight as Vice-President, where he took care that the laws were faithfully executed. His perspective would fill some giant blind spots on the present Court, which is made up entirely of former federal appeals-court judges who have little or no political experience, have never been elected to anything, and have a strikingly narrow experience of life in general.
A law degree is probably a helpful credential, all other things being equal, for a trial judge or an appeals-court judge. But it is far from essential in a Justice of the Supreme Court. The heart of a Justice’s job is interpreting and applying the Constitution, and for that things like a knowledge of history (including Constitutional history), a feel for the workings of government, a strong moral sense, an ability to think and write clearly, and a temperamental affinity for the long view—all of which Gore has in spades—are much more important than a professional familiarity with the details of contract or case law. Gore would make a superb addition to the Court. And, of course, it is pleasant to imagine the opportunity his appointment would afford the four remaining members of the Bush v. Gore junta, especially Antonin “Get Over It” Scalia, to contemplate and, perhaps, repent of their sins.
I wish the prez would pick the best NFL referree.
I dont really care what his or her opinions are .. totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that their opinions are checked at the door and they apply the rules as written in the rule book. I dont care if the referree of Sundays game is black, white, male or female just as long as they apply the rule correctly.
Our rule book is the constitution.
A good judge should consult the rule book, and apply the rule.
If there is no rule that addresses the issue — the constitution is very plain in its language — its a state issue.
The biggest danger to the republic is the overreaching of interpretations.
The reasoning that if one sells a tomatoe that one grew in their back yard at the road stand on their front yard is engaging in interstate commerce is to me perverse.
Hell I suppose one is engaging in international commerce too as it just might affect the price of imported Mexican tomatoes!
Back to the rule book analogy, our judges are limited to our rules, not canadian league rules… not that there is anything wrong with football north of the border.
When we want to have Canadian rules we will amend our rule book properly not have the referrees consider it a good rule and incorporate it from the bench.
Before anyone points out that I used the word ‘legislation’ instead of ‘legislature,’ THX I KNOW.
I propose John C. Dvorak!
Maybe that would be TOO weird…
Perhaps Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. Nah, economists are one of the few groups that write even more impenetrable prose than lawyers and judges (though his books are certainly very readable).
Actually, I think Lawrence Lessig would make a good justice. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly would certainly be interesting…
It was fun scaring the Right with Gore, but surely there are even scarier possibilities… Noam Chomsky, Jerry Brown, Lloyd Doggett, Dennis Kucinich, George Clooney, Bono — who else?
#57 – Alfie Ralfie Malfie,
I’m glad you don’t want the gov’t near your religion. I don’t want it anywhere near your religion either.
I do not misread the Declaration of Independence. I would point out two things though:
1) It is you that likes literal reading and A) got your quote wrong and B) didn’t know it wasn’t in the constitution but was in the declaration of independence. The former makes no reference to god or creator or any other supernatural or paranormal being.
2) Jefferson was a Deist, as were many of the founders. He believed god set the universe in motion and went away. He was vehemently anti-Christian in his personal views though he supported your right to your “moonbat” beliefs.
#62 – Hmeyers,
“there are two kinds of fools.”
one says, ‘this is old and therefore good.’
^^ Republicans
another says, ‘this is new and therefore better.”
^^ Democrats
Repugnicans haven’t said they want the old back for a long time, unless by old, you mean medieval.
Today’s repugnicans do not want to keep this country as it was. They want to remake it into A) a Christian version of Iran and simultaneously B) a country where the rich own and control damn near everything.
Scratch that. They’ve globalized now. That’s what they want for the whole world.
As for the Democraps, they are less bad mostly because they are less organized. Were they to get all of their ducks in a row and all vote the same way, who knows what would happen?
I want a zero party system, personally. I’d much rather vote for candidates than for party platforms.
Alfie,
As an aside, if you’re capable of processing this type of logic, you may be interested to know that God Prefers Atheists.
I nominate Charles Manson.
Al Gore did not invent the internet!
he did however, make up global warming
Al Gore would be perfect for a position on the Supercilious Court, but not the Supreme Court.
#76, Scott,
Great link.
What about Ralph Nader?
If Obama really wants to reduce the power of greedy corporations, could you think of a better candidate?