Scalia, J.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by nosborne48, Feb 14, 2016.

Loading...
  1. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    That isn't accurate.

    Taft, unlike either Clinton, was a judge and served as Solicitor-General and was appointed a federal judge before he received his first cabinet position (Secretary of War) which led him into politics. He had a well established judicial record over the course of a decades long legal career. Then, after he served as President (but before he was nominated to the Supreme Court) he became a law professor at Yale. So, over the course of his career, his actual service as a politician (which I'm including cabinet service here because it's a political appointment), 4 years as Secretary of War, 2 years as Governor-General of the Philippines (appointed), about 1 month as Provisional Governor of Cuba, 2 years as solicitor general and 4 years as President. That's it. He wasn't a career politician. He never served in Congress. And, of his 12 years in politics, two of those years were spent as Solicitor General, where he was doing lawyery stuff.

    The Clintons are politicians who just so happened to be lawyers for brief portions of their careers. Taft was a lawyer who just happened to be a politician for a relatively brief portion of his career.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2016
  2. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    A major reason to shy away from politicians is that even if the nominee is otherwise qualified, he or she would likely have to recuse himself or herself from a decent number of cases brought before the court. Then we are back to the 4-4 nightmare of indecision.
     
  3. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    I'd be more concerned with appointing someone who simply isn't a legal scholar. I do not think Mr. Obama has been a terribly effective leader. I do think he has done some good things. And I believe he is definitely a qualified legal scholar who may very well choose to return to academia after he leaves the White House. But, my concern about him being appointed to SCOTUS, for example would be the same concern I had when he ran for President; he just doesn't have the requisite experience.

    In the end, there are more than enough qualified judges and legal scholars to choose from. Choosing a politician is, in my opinion, just lazy when it comes to selecting someone to take a lifetime appointment in the nation's highest court.
     
  4. jhp

    jhp Member

    Can you expand on this?

    Agreed! :usa2:
     
  5. StefanM

    StefanM New Member


    I agree with your position RE: qualifications. I was mainly referring to a (theoretical) politician who may have the requisite experience, etc. but who happened to be currently serving in a political position.
     

Share This Page