A Well Rounded Supreme Court Justice

With speculation about a new Supreme Court Justice now all over D.C., we also have the obligatory push by some to have a Supreme Court Justice that is outside of the judiciary.

We have blogged about this issue before, but I wanted to add a few thoughts anyway. In my view, the argument that a President should nominate someone to the Supreme Court who lacks experience in the court of appeals to ensure "diversity of experience" doesn't make a lot of sense. If typical Supreme Court nominees are 50 years old, and have spent 5-10 years on the appellate bench, they will have spent most of their lives doing something beyond filling up the Federal Reporter. The will have been practicing lawyers, public interest advocates, government officials, legislative staffers, academics, and the like.

True, few federal judges have experience in public office, a lack of experience that O'Neill finds troublesome. But then I'm not sure how that's relevant. Take the case of former legislators, who I would think are the most common type of former public officeholders who are often considered for judgeships. What exactly is it that legislators do that judges need to know? What does that experience teach that jurists who have not been elected to public office suffer from not knowing? Given the realities of work in Congress or state legislatures, I'm not sure.

Perhaps the argument is that those who want former legislators to become judges really don't want "diversity of experience," but rather like it when judges act like legislators. That is, maybe a former legislator is more likely to legislate from the bench -- an overused term, but here I think an accurate one -- and some think that's a good thing. Perhaps. But if so, I think that argument should be made directly, not hidden behind an argument for "diversity."

I've always wondered about this argument. I'm not saying that diversity of opinion is bad. I'm just not seeing why it's good. In fact, the last time this happened President Bush nominated Harriet Miers. What we learned was that Miers was a capable lawyer with plenty of life experience and she also was woefully low on Constitutional knowledge.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate place for elites. They need to know more about the Constitution, the law, and case law than anyone. I don't see how an individual would get that outside of a long time on the Judiciary. Furthermore, I don't see anyone could judge a nominee's grasp of all of this without a serious paper trail.

There are certainly other ways to get this without being on District Courts et al, but I don't see the fascination with it. I certainly think that being a law professor could also get that kind of experience and paper trail. Of course, most Supreme Court Justices did something prior to that. No one becomes a judge right out of law school. Still, the idea that we should nominate someone like Janet Napolitano simply because we would have a diversity of opinion seems to be fool hearty. We've seen just how much politicians lack a grasp of the Constitution with the health care debate. Do we really think that a career politician will know two hundred plus years of case law in a manner necessary of a Supreme Court Justice? So, why are some so fascinated with this diversity of experience?

An Interesting Admission By Secretary Napolitano

It was a Fox News push by the Obama administration. While the president was sitting down with Brett Baier, the Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was sitting down with Bill O'Reilly.


The subject turned to KSM about 4:40 in. O'Reilly asked Napolitano where she has adviced the president KSM should be tried. Napolitano replied

I have not advised the president on this.

That's rather remarkable. KSM is the most high level Al Qaeda we've ever captured and certainly the most high profile to ever be charged with anything. Yet, the Homeland Security Director has had absolutely no input as to where KSM should be tried.

If he's tried domestically, that's a Homeland Security issue. Yet, the president and the Homeland Security dept. don't appear to be having any dialogue about where he should be tried. That simply doesn't instill confidence that the administration will make a good decision on this matter.

Obama on His Way to Infamy

Let me give my presidential grade for President Obama's first year. If the next three are as "good" as this one, he'll be challenging Hoover et al for the worst president of all time. He's got plenty of time to turn things around, but let's not kid ourselves. So far, he's been really close to an unmitigated disaster. My dad, who didn't vote for him but generally likes him, constantly harps on his extension of unemployment insurance as an accomplishment. Now, if a supporter makes that your accomplishment, you know you've got problems.

Whether it's domestic policy, foreign policy or political acumen, Obama continues to show that he's simply not up to the job. Most of our worst fears about the president continue to be realized. His complete lack of experience is clearly showing. Clearly, he didn't have a proper vetting process in place. Furthermore, on multiple occasions, the Van Jones affair in particular, he showed a total political tone deafness that's simply stunning.

The biggest folly has to be health care reform. Such sweeping reform usually add to a legacy. Look at Social Security. That's nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme and yet that's a lasting legacy for FDR. This won't be anything like that. That's because even if it does pass it will be so roundly rejected that it will be repealed in no time.

Obama's inexperience has clearly shown on that one. Remember when he urged the legislature to send him a bill by August. What could have possibly put in his mind that such a complicated piece of legislation would be done that quickly. That misstep cost him credibility. Worse yet, he let the Congress craft the bill and didn't control them in the slightest. By the mid summer, the process was an unmitigated disaster and he couldn't contain it. Now, we're at a point where he'll attempt to shove a bill with 30%+ approval down everyone's throat in a totally partisan manner.

On the economy, the president has spent a lot of time talking about health care. The administration promised that unemployment wouldn't cross 8% and now it's 10%. They promised the stimulus would create jobs right away and we're still losing jobs. They promised that spending $787 billion would create jobs and now the Democrats want to spend $150 billion TO CREATE JOBS. He's locked himself into GM, AIG, and Fannie/Freddie and all are a black hole of money and the president has no idea how to extract himself from all of them.

Then, there's GITMO. He proclaimed boldly that it would be closed in a year and then didn't have a plan. Moving the terrorists anywhere in country is deeply unpopular not to mention just plain dumb. Yet, he's now so committed that he's going to do it no matter what. In fact, he's brushed off calls not to transfer the terrorists in light of the attempted attack since several of the planners are former occupants of GITMO. Even worse is his bone headed decision to try these terrorists in country in civilian courts. Whereas a Bush legacy is to once and for all treat terrorists as enemies in war, Obama's may very well be to send us back to treating them as criminals despite the historic failure of that approach.

He has a chance to secure his legacy by pulling out a victory in Afghanistan. I believe Bush went a long way to cementing his with the surge in Iraq. It remains to be seen just how things will go in Afghanistan. I believe he has the right strategy but it's yet unclear if he has the will to win. In his first year, the most troubling aspect of his presidency is his lack of will to fight the terrorists. Without that we won't win in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

His foreign policy is still evolving and it may evolve properly. His Nobel Prize speech was a breathe of fresh air. The president may be ready to get tough with Iran, and he certainly made the difficult choice in Afghanistan. Yet, he sided with the Socialist Zelaya in Honduras. He sat back and said nothing while Democratic forces erupted in protest in Iran and he was a way too buddy, buddy with the thug dictator Hugo Chavez. Embracing America's enemies, not supporting democratic forces, and a lack of will are the worst kinds of legacies.

Then, there's the events of the last seven days. It was nothing short of a disaster. The president said nothing for four days. He refused to leave Hawaii and his DHS Secretary claimed everything went just fine. He wanted to present an air of calm so that panic wouldn't ensue. Instead, he created the perception that he didn't care and chaos ensued. That happened after a failed attack.

So, what's Obama's legacy so far? It's the stimulus. The only effect we know it's had is adding a massive amount of money to our debt and deficit. That's it.

Now, the presidency is a wonderful, challenging, and awesome thing. So, we expect and even demand that the office itself change the occupant. We hope and assume that President Obama will grow into the office as he continues in it. So, the next three years he should evolve and he should improve. Let's not kid ourselves. If the next three are like the first one, he's right next to Herbert Hoover in infamy of the presidency.

Napolitano on the Brink

The calls for Janet Napolitano to resign are now bi partisan.

Now Democrats have joined the chorus.

New Jersey State Senate President Richard Codey, a Democrat, wrote a letter to Napolitano this week calling on her to step down. He said Napolitano, an attorney and former Arizona governor, does not have the experience for the post she is in.

"We should have someone who doesn't need to go in there and learn about terrorism, learn about security," Codey told Fox News. "How close were these 300 people on this plane from losing their lives because homeland security broke down? Boy, it was really close."

The Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and has grown into one of the largest Cabinet departments in the federal government. Charged with keeping the nation safe from terrorist attacks and responding to natural disasters, it covers the TSA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and a slew of other agencies.

Codey said a candidate "well-versed" in intelligence should step into the job.

We all watched as the administration stood by for a week and more while more and more embarrassing information came out about Van Jones. That situation was only embarrassing for the President. In fact, it was stunning to watch the White House so tone deaf to the obvious.



The dynamics in that story were different. Van Jones was a relatively unimportant staffer. That story was driven and carried by the conservative media. This is a matter of life and death and Napolitano is a cabinet member. Unlike the Jones story, there is a fever pitch of criticism coming from everywhere about Napolitano.



Dan Gerstein, a former aide to Joe Lieberman, gives Napolitano no more than two to three months. If she lasts that long, the President himself will see his own approvals drop even further. So far, he's given Napolitano the standard vote of confidence.



I can't imagine that lasting too long. Napolitano has been an absolute disaster. It was Napolitano that was responsible for chainging terrorism into man made disasters. Napolitano's DHS was also responsible for the report that made returning military that joined militias a threat. It is DHS that is responsible for the Transportation Safety Administration which has jurisdiction over the airports. In a situation like this, there is plenty of blame to go around. Yet, with her comments that everything worked fine, Janet Napolitano became the face of incompetence in this crisis. So, her days are numbered. I know it. Most of the media knows it and it's only a matter of time before the President figures it out as well.