Supremely Surprising

As all powerful as the US Supreme Court has been in shaping our society, it is usually ignored by we the people whose actions are controlled by its interpretations of the rules. In large part, that's due to media indifference to any story that can't be told in news snippets.

Only when it deals with abortion or when it helps steal a presidential election do we pay attention. Or when someone leaves the court.

That's when the various interest groups can end their years long hibernations and raise big bucks for the fight over a replacement.

Thanks to outgoing David Souter the games over who's incoming can begin, starting with the candidates, and the uninformed speculation about them..

We've seen the latest menu of those we've guessed are on President Obama's short list. But what do we really know?

Well, he says he wants someone with "empathy". That would seem to be a no-brainer, considering how so many of the current guys on the bench espouse the absurd "Strict Constructionist" approach to the Constitution.

That's really a smokescreen to obscure a fight against progress and justice. It's doubletalk that reinforces Aristotle's view of the law as "Mind without reason". So ignore the critics. "Empathy" is cool.

So are females. Even though Souter is a guy, one thing we know that the president damned well better pick one to replace him, or there will be hell to pay from an awful lot of angry women in this country, not the least of whom would be Michelle Obama.

Deservedly so. It's ridiculous to suggest that the selection should ignore chromosomes and focus only on qualification. Implicit in that argument is the belief that only men possess the proper credentials.

There is certainly no longer a shortage of accomplished women in law as well as minorities. Law firms, in fact, now go out of their way to seek out what the Human Resources people call "Two Fers". Nevertheless the Supremes are still way behind. We need more females and people of color wearing those robes.

It's OK to include a couple of token males in the list of prospects, but, let's face it they're only window-dressing.

Indeed most of the speculation does involve the female side of the gender gap. Having said that names we see are still somewhat predictable. We don't need to be so limited to such short lists.

We shouldn't overlook the chance of a surprise. President's love to come up with someone who is not part of the consensus. Accordingly let's check out some of the many others who might be worth considering... some, in fact, that go beyond "surprising" to "startling"

That could certainly include Oprah Winfrey. Instead of "You gotta be kidding", think "Why not?". Who better personifies "empathy". She IS empathy. Oh yeah she's, a minority who obliterated the color line long before Barack Obama. It doesn't hurt that she so prominently supported him early on. In other words, she pushes all the buttons.

True, she's not a lawyer. But you don't absolutely have to be. All the Constitution requires is "...good Behaviour". There are many who believe that not being an attorney would be an advantage when it comes to good behaviour.

If you're still suffering, though, from that legal professional hangup, here's another name that is absent from the predictions. She is an attorney , an Ivy-leaguer, minority, very popular, and close to Mr. President.

By now you've probably figured out I mean the aforementioned Michelle Obama. While there are clearly a few nay-sayers who might raise some "Separation-of-Powers" issues, it's not the first time the First Lady has gone on to other high office.

Which brings me to Hillary Clinton. After her "Wife-of" gig, she's gone on to to be a Senator, Secretary of State, and might have been President herself if she and her advisers hadn't so badly blown it. While there's no way to ever confuse her as a person of color, let's not forget she's married to the man who used to be called "The First Black President". At least until his comments in the last election.

Hillary's an attorney, although most of her professional work came as a small town lawyer. For those who say she wouldn't want to be on the Supreme Court because she might want to make another stab at President, it should be pointed out she could always resign as a Justice.

All three of these women have unique stories, which would definitely mean that the confirmation hearings would be a lot more entertaining than the bombastic same-old-same-olds we've come to expect.

Before you dismiss these names as to far out there, let's not forget that the new member of SCOTUS will be replacing someone, whose selection by President Bush the 1st inspired a nearly universal response: "Who the hell is David Souter". At least we've heard of these three.

Maybe they could do it part-time. Being an Associate Justice isn't all that heavy a load. Most of the hard work is done by the paid interns they call "Clerks".

So Oprah could continue the TV show, Michelle could still spend time with Bo and the vegetable garden and Hillary, maybe she could stay on as Secretary of State. She's appointed a bunch of special envoys. They can do the heavy lifting of the world's hot spots while she does the court thing.

As usual, skeptics will belittle each of these possibilities, but all three have one huge advantage. The media would finally pay attention and trivialize the Supreme Court. Maybe next, we could persuade the justices to Twitter their rulings. Imagine the possibilities!!

By now, we know that the President has been calling around seeking suggestions on his choice. We don't know whether that's for real or whether he's already made up his mind and simply being polite. I can tell you that he hasn't called me. Yet.

Comments

[reasonIsGood]

Michelle Obama?! I do not know her well. She may be entirely qualified, but certainly we don't need to waste our time pursuing that option, at least until her husband leaves office. Her credentials you suggest are 1) woman, 2) her last name is Obama, 3) African American, and 4) popular in the public eye. Certainly there are others that merit consideration of such an honor beyond this sexist, populist, racist, nepotism. If you want a two-fer, let's start with the other half of the equation please.
As Hillary is the only one of your suggestions that even passes the "Is this clearly absurd" test, I'll give her a pass for now and allow others to take it from here.

[reasonIsGood]

Mr. Franken,
The idea that a non-attorney / judge has any place on the SCOTUS is preposterous. Those judges are responsible to interpret the law and so must be trained in it. Someone who is not will simply not be able to fulfill his / her responsibilities. As such he / she will not be independent in any way, but become reliant on others around him / her. (Really, Oprah? Has our society fallen so far that we want a talk show host ruling on law?!)
That leads me to the next issue, which maybe explains your position on the first. The Constitution is to be interpreted according to what it says. If it doesn't say what we want it to, we must amend it. The notion that empathy be a qualification for a candidate is one thing. The idea that it be anywhere in the top 50 most important qualifications is simply foolish. Sure, we want someone who understands real life, real people, real problems. But we want them to be rule according to law, not be swayed by the pain of the situation. As for the idea of "progress and justice" (someone told me once told me that this phrase is doublespeak for communism and perpetuation of race-based decisionmaking), the SCOTUS is responsible for justice and interpretation of the law. The progress part comes from the people, from legistation and from the executive branch. Let them feel the pain and write laws that address it.

[FlyingEagel]

You are so right. I urge to people to vote all the time. GWB appointed two justices to the bench. People do not realize how this will affect our lives for years to come. Wake up and vote.