Jeffrey Toobin’s Supreme Court Prediction
[posted by Justin Levine]
Caught author/legal pundit Jeffrey Toobin speaking at the L.A. Library this evening, discussing his Supreme Court book “The Nine”. [Patterico’s thoughts on the book here, here, here, here, here, and here, here, and here. Recital of the one snippet I read here.]
Toobin made one bold prediction of note that stirred the audience’s attention. He said if Hillary Clinton becomes President and has the opportunity for a Supreme Court nomination, her first choice will be….Barack Obama.
He insisted that he was dead serious about this.
His reasoning?
1. Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review before graduating with honors there.
2. Obama was a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School.
3. “…and in typical ‘Clinton-Machiavellian’ fashion, Hillary would be getting rid of a potential political rival with her appointment.”
Funny. Dude. C’mon. Barack Obama? On the bench? No way.
By the way, if Thompson won and he asked you, late i his second term when you have more experience uder your belt, would you take the position?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/2/2007 @ 9:41 pmI predict he would decline if solicited.
He has entered the world of elective politics.
He knows that even if he does not win the nomination in 2008, he is only 46 years old. He’ll be a viable candidate for for at least 5 more election cycles.
With Roberts as CJ, that seat is closed for 20+ years.
Why would Obama opt to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court now? He could still be a prime candidate for any Dem. president 10-15 years from now.
Toobin is a dope.
wls (fb8809) — 10/2/2007 @ 9:42 pmuder=under (not udder belt)
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/2/2007 @ 9:42 pmIs Toobin a Hillary supporter?
DRJ (ec59b5) — 10/2/2007 @ 9:45 pmObama has minimal practice experience (only three years, all of it as an associate at a very small and relatively obscure law firm), and even that was in one narrow field (ostensibly as a civil rights lawyer, a term whose meaning is quite flexible and that can have a large overlap with “professional politician and string-puller”).
He was not a tenured prof, nor even on a tenure track, at Chicago, but rather a “lecturer,” perhaps as part of the “adjunct” faculty. Number of scholarly papers on which he’s identified as the author in SSRN: zero. I’m not sure if he published a student note as a Harvard Law Review member, but I haven’t found any reference to it yet. (I did read that he was credited for “research assistance” by Larry Tribe on a conlaw article entitled “The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn From Modern Physics.”)
Obama showed precisely where his priorities lie, as between law and politics, when he didn’t do a judicial clerkship.
Being president of the Harvard Law Review is an impressive accomplishment, but it’s neither necessary nor remotely sufficient as a SCOTUS qualification. We very much need a lawyer with practical private-sector civil trial court experience on the Court; to the best of my knowledge, no one currently on the Court has tried or presided over a civil jury trial among private-party litigants. But there are plenty of former law review editors.
That Toobin could make this sort of suggestion shows how deeply invested he is into a shallow Hollywood/Beltway pop legal culture (as opposed to real legal culture).
Beldar (b3518e) — 10/2/2007 @ 11:15 pmIt would be nice to have a few non-lawyers on the Supreme Court, Beldar.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/2/2007 @ 11:26 pmWe’ve already got Ginsburg alphie. Isn’t she enough?
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/2/2007 @ 11:31 pmEvidently this isn’t a new theory that he’s floating. He told the WSJ Law Blog the same thing two or three weeks ago. Set out much the same reasoning, and added:
Itsme (8220df) — 10/2/2007 @ 11:43 pmHaha, daley,
Looks like Ginsburg is well-schooled in legal banjo playin’.
Time for a little fresh blood.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/2/2007 @ 11:50 pmThis makes no logical sense, if Hillary becomes president than Obama is no longer a threat to her. Show me the last time that a sitting president lost a primary election. Even Carter and Ford won the nomination of their respective parties.
I honestly can’t remember any sitting president who ran in a subsequent year NOT getting the primary nomination. The closest thing is Teddy Roosevelt breaking from the party and winning more votes than the Republican winner (Taft)
JFH (577035) — 10/3/2007 @ 5:58 amObama’s future is in the hands of Tony Rezko.
nk (7d4710) — 10/3/2007 @ 6:15 amBut, but, but if Mrs Clinton were elected [shudder!] and nominated Barack Hussein Obama to the Supreme Court, the Republicans would never be allowed to say that the nominee had a political agenda!
Dana (3e4784) — 10/3/2007 @ 6:36 amHussein would never have gotten into HLS, much less been president of or even on law review, had he not been black. Why don’t we just start hiring blind people to fly airplanes, just to make extra sure there is no discrimination going on???
TheManTheMyth (9a7d6a) — 10/3/2007 @ 8:24 amThis makes no logical sense, if Hillary becomes president than Obama is no longer a threat to her. Show me the last time that a sitting president lost a primary election.
True, but Obama could become the liberal standard bearer in the Senate, if and when Ted Kennedy’s liver finally fails, and work to push Clinton much further to the left (e.g. on Iraq) than she wants to go. Sending him off to the Supreme Court may end up being a good idea to her.
JVW (3d38ff) — 10/3/2007 @ 4:49 pmBeldar,
Excellent comment.
capitano (03e5ec) — 10/3/2007 @ 4:54 pmThe last time a sitting US President tried to ship away his chief in-party political rival onto the Supreme Court, said President would up calling his choice “the biggest damn fool decision” he ever made. Methinks if Hillary was stupid enough to follow Toobin’s advise she would reach the same conclusion.
Sean P (e57269) — 10/3/2007 @ 5:23 pm“Methinks if Hillary was stupid enough to follow Toobin’s advise“…
She is…
Everytime the hildabeast opens her pie hole she let’s the planet know just how dumb she really is…
Can anyone quote one even semi-intelligent comment she’s made?
juandos (0ecd0b) — 10/3/2007 @ 6:15 pmIs there any doubt that, if nominated, the ABA would find him Unanimously Well Qualified?
Chris L (645566) — 10/4/2007 @ 6:14 pmhe’d have better decisions than Cardozo though, they would be some of the best legal writing (with his rhetoric) to come out of the S.C. in years.
jose (625631) — 10/10/2007 @ 11:35 amI have seen one or two people here doing the same thing. How about this gem:
Budd Campbell (920c42) — 4/16/2008 @ 10:19 am