“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.
# 28 yankinwaoz
“#19…. sorry, Fred Gwinn is dead.”
That would make him the PERFECT Nominee!!
I was going to vote for myself.
That way I know at least one Supreme would see things my way!
The next four justices should be as FAR LEFT as Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito are FAR RIGHT \
These ideologues are most conservative justices in the post-war history. http://tinyurl.com/cotv96
The conservatives will HOWL that Obama is “stacking the courts” but he’d only be BALANCES it.
But, alas, true-to-form, Obama is going to appoint a centrist.
… and true-to-form, the conservatives are STILL going to howl that Obama is stacking the courts.
#23 – damn you 😉 You do make some good points. It would be a way to make the gas bag have to stick to reality.
Fred Gwinn being dead does not exclude him from being a better choice most of the likely nominees.
Amen to number 23. You said it best, and I think now I could be in favor of this headline. 😀
Alfred, give up the right-wing nonsense, and quit parroting Rush and Hannity. The constitution has no afterbook, there’s no way to “properly” determine what the original authors meant or how their words would apply to technology and society 230 years later.
Reasonable people will see the same facts and disagree as to their meaning, but you often appear to be coming from a wholly different reality.
Gloria Allred!
Okay, you can all stop laughing now.
got it part right, but the winner should be……..GORE Vidal !
Damn, you just made me spend an hour cleaning coffee off the monitor and keyboard. Don’t do that again! ALGORE has found his comfortable green niche.
I’d say it will be Ginsberg and Stevens who would be the next after Souter to be replaced. The conservatives will hold on until after 2012 in case there is a backlash and the country elects more conservatives. Or if BHO makes a second term and the GOP collapses, then there could be 6-7 30 something Progressives on the SCOTUS before 2017.
#23 has won me over. I heartily back Al Gore for Supreme Court Justice.
I suppose he’d also have to requse himself from internet cases as he did invent it after all. 🙂
Hear, hear! Well spoken.
Al Gore sounds great for the Supreme Court. They are always in need of someone to serve donuts and pour coffee.
This idiot on the supreme court would be a perfect match to the slick-talking liar in the White House.
Right…. That’d be about as stupid as the NeoCons nominating Bush. The two have equal brainpower and are worshiped for their ignorance and stupidity.
#32 – Ah_Yea,
“#19…. sorry, Fred Gwinn is dead.”
Oops. I hadn’t realized that. And, he has been since 1993. At least he won’t get mad at me for misspelling his name. (Fred Gwynne)
Darn! Darn! Darn! Darn! Darn!
#33 – Alfred1,
#29 You either accept the meaning of the words AS THE AUTHOR meant them, or you do not.
Good! The author of the first amendment to the constitution explained exactly how he meant his words in a letter to the Danbury Baptists.
http://tinyurl.com/8uox6
I’m very glad to hear that you agree.
So, I’m sure now that you would oppose the faith based initiatives of both Bush and Obama, which spend federal money on programs that discriminate by religion.
Thank you for your support.
#33 – Alfred1,
Back to the real world…only total ignorance of our constitution “rights endowed by our Creator” can believe the Founders were anti-religious.
That’s the Declaration of Independence. No creator of any kind is ever mentioned in the Constitution.
Here’s the correct quote, if you care about such things.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Cripes Dave, you gave me a heart attack!
#24:
“Obama will appoint at least two if not three contemporary thinkers to the bench.”
What the hell does ‘contemporary thinker’ even mean?
Funny, but democracy is an idea thousands of years old. Let’s get rid of it in favor of something more ‘contemporary’! How about fascism!
“there are two kinds of fool. one says, ‘this is old and therefore good.’ another says, ‘this is new and therefore better.”
‘Contemporary’ is a word like ‘pragmatic.’ It just means, ‘the way I want it.’
Jonathan Turley,
Carolyn Kennedy,
or Al Gore would all make great candidates.
Alfred…all people see the world through their core beliefs and life experiences. Don’t expect anyone else to see it like you do, unless you get your opinions from others.
The homogeneous republican base does exactly that…they let others think for them, determine what to feel and believe, and what words to use.
#55 BRM said.. What the hell does ‘contemporary thinker’ even mean?
Contemporary is actually a common word. It’s an adjective
1. existing or occurring at the present time
2. living or occurring in the same period
Basically BRM, we want justices interpreting law consistent with the present times. Does that make sense? Periodically, amendments are made to made to say, give women rights to vote, etc etc.
If this over your head, no worries. We are here to help.
Moderators – Tomorrow you’re probably going to run the pictures of the face transplant patient. Run Gores picture next to the after picture.
Damn you Uncle Dave!
It’s not quite 7 in the morning here and I sat down with my first cup of coffee, brought the laptop to life and brought up DU. I saw this headline and did an honest-to-god spit take. Fortunately, it miss the keyboard but you scared the unholy poop right out of me.
Please give me an address where I can send the laundry bill.
There are very few worse choices to sit on the Supreme Court and most of them are frequent posters right here. Yo, tambien!
“there are two kinds of fools.”
one says, ‘this is old and therefore good.’
^^ Republicans
another says, ‘this is new and therefore better.”
^^ Democrats
Why not? The man created the internet, just ask him. He also doesn’t pollute even though he uses more power than a small hamlet. He gives somebody money and magically the pollution goes away. He’s a truly green person; that is he’s getting richer taking their green from the most gullible green nicks. I’d call him a con man and who knows more about the law than a con man?
#55 BRM said.. What the hell does ‘contemporary thinker’ even mean?
Currently it is a figure of speech known as an oxymoron.
#33, Ayatollah,
You either accept the meaning of the words AS THE AUTHOR meant them, or you do not.
Thank you for clearing that up. Next time some idiot claims the bible is “god’s word” I can set them straight. It is really just the guy that wrote the letter or the story that deserves credit.
So, I wonder, if the bible isn’t “god’s word”, how do we really know what god intended or wants us to do? If the bible isn’t god’s word, why do these nutbars quote it so much?
President Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court is …………. Ted Nugent.
That would send a shiver down the spines of all liberals.
No, really, it was just a joke. Calm down. There is no reason to jump, it was only a joke.
I can just see the newspaper headlines now: “Supreme Court Gored!”
What a scary picture of Fat Albert.
#59:
Oh, that word is soooo over my head. Yeah, I know the dictionary definition of ‘contemporary,’ you arrogant asshole.
But you suggest that Scalia or Thomas wouldn’t grant women the right to vote, that conservative justices would be so backward as to rule against something like this. The *only* issue that approaches the 19th Amendment is gay marriage.
I see ‘contemporary’ or ‘pragmatic,’ and I think of someone who will interpret the Constitution in a way that the majority wishes it interpreted, AND NO OTHER WAY. As far as I can tell, that’s the meaning of this term.
Obama says he wants an ’empathetic’ justice. That justice is “about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families”. I believe this is too broad to be meaningful. I just want someone who applies the law as it’s written.
If the law needs to change, it’s the Legislation’s responsibility to rewrite it.
Bork said it best: “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.”