It’s just bizarre the way that liberals imagine the Supreme Court as being a mini-legislature. In their estimate, the purpose of a judge is to provide the proper political skills – mediation between the various factions. etc. It’s just bizarre and reveals a total misunderstanding of what judges do.
Jeffrey Rosen suggests (not completely in jest, it appears) that President Obama appoint himself to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. Rosen must be awfully disillusioned with the Obama presidency. As I contended here, when folks like Rosen reach this state, one must seriously entertain the idea that Obama is undervalued.
But perhaps Rosen’s proposal is the result of Justice Scalia getting too far inside his head. In a strange new incarnation of his Obama worship, Rosen argues that “Obama’s detached and judicious disposition would equip him to challenge the conservative hothead, Scalia, without descending to his name-calling.”
That’s probably the dumbest sentence ever written. 1) How in the world would Obama’s disposition have any effect on what Scalia writes? and 2) Scalia is far, far from a “hothead” unless you consider careful reasoning “hotheadedness”. Scalia has never name-called in all his years on the court. The whole idea is preposterous. Scalia does make liberals look foolish often, by using sometihing called “logic” – but there you are.
But Obama-Scalia would be at least as much of a mismatch as Obama-Putin and Obama-Ahmadinejad. Indeed, Obama, having never judged or engaged in the practice of law on a sustained basis, is no more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than he was to be President of the United States. (In touting Obama for the Court, Rosen relies on the fact that he impressed a bunch of law students).
Exactly. Obama would get eaten alive. He is a lightweight of enormous proportions. The other judges – all of them – would eat him alive for breakfast. The reason is that Obama does not go where the evidence leads him. He shapes the evidence to get it to go where he wants. This may fly in the political world, but all of the other judges would consider Obama to be in way over his head. He would be an embarrassment.
Rosen also uses his piece to attack Chief Justice Roberts. According to Rosen, “Obama could take on the role of Supreme Court mediator, conciliator and master compromiser that Roberts promised to play but has not yet delivered.” But Obama has showed himself to be anything but a “master compromiser.” During the health care debate, he was unwilling or unable to win over the likes of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. A master compromiser would have much more to show from a year of Democrat domination of Congress than Obama does.