Skip to main content

Why should Obama pick Al Gore for Supreme Court Of The United States?  The answer is one word.  PAYBACK.  

The biggest obstical in Gore's confirmation is he would be the first justice picked who was not already a judge.  However Al Gore knows more then anyone in the country from being the first victem of the dawn of a new tyranny of a partisan system of Justice that rewards party loyalty, at the expense of the rule of law.  

Al Gore was this country's first victim of the zealous corruption that gripped the world during 8 terrible years of the nightmare of the Bush Administration.  Study after study concludes that hundreds of thousands of human beings would not live to see the end of 8 years of George Bush, because of his criminal exploits as president.  Our nation demands Al Gore be the next SCOTUS judge.  Only Al can redeem the Court from their disasterous decision in 2000.  

And the justices that were there that day know it too.

Bill Clinton remarked of the 2000 Bush vs. Gore decision:

If Gore had been ahead in the vote count and Bush behind, there's not a doubt in my mind that the same Supreme Court would have voted 9 to 0 to [re]count the vote and I would have supported the decision... Bush v. Gore will go down in history as one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever made, along with the Dred Scott case.[53]

How could the highest court in the land treat one man different then another man?  Wouldn't that fly in the face of every single word in the Constitution?  Even instances in the constitution where partiality is in place, where slaves are deemed by the constitution to be 3/5ths a person, these provisions were overturned in further Ammendments.

Bill Clinton was the previous job holder and surely he's opinion on the matter would be a powerful statement to any judge.

Besides, why would anyone not want a recount?

Bush's case was simple:

"Since every county in Florida had slightly different rules on how to do a recount, there could not be a state recount because a mistake might occur when counting a single ballot.

That was Bush's entire case.  

As to:

If a mistake can be made in recounting, why wouldn't a mistake be made when tallying the votes in the first place on Election night?

Everyone knew mistakes were prone to go in Bush's favor in an election in a state where his brother was governor.  So why not have a recount, its easy enough to do.  The Supreme Court concurs with the prior courts ruling all the time.  4 justices did concur with the prior courts ruling.  5 did not.

If Al Gore becomes a SCOTUS justice, he will be met with several other justices who were there those fateful days.  

Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer voted for the recount,  Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and William Rehnquist voted against a recount.

With Souter retireing and Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer still there, Al Gore will be met with the 3 remaining justices who were there that fateful day.

Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are still there.  They know they were wrong.  They have witnessed the failure unfold before their eyes.  Iraq, Katrina, Terry Schiavo...  They have witnessed the complete utter collapse of the republican supply-side economic system.  They have witnessed the mascot of their party go from the once mighty elephant, to the now ridiculed mascot 'NoNo' the dinosaur.

And now to work with till their retirement, the one man, who... if they had only followed the law and maintained a minimal respect for justice would have prevented the complete and utter collapse of the GOP, if they just sided with Al Gore, they would still have a political party.

Instead of this failure.  And if they wouldn't at least do it for their party, why the fuck did Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas not do it for their country?  It was so obvious Bush was gonna totally fuck everything up.

Can you imagine Gore sitting next to those three bozos?  

AL GORE: "Who is laughing now bitches???"

It would be GLORIOUS!!!  Screw 'would'.  Are we Ameri-CANs or Ameri-CAN'Ts?  People would say:

"Ohh, you can't pick someone who is not an Appellate Judge."

Tonight, tonight, I say to the people of America, to Democrats and Republicans and independents across this great land: Enough.  This moment, this moment, this is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive.   And we are here -- we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look just like the last eight.

But the record's clear:  Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas have voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.

Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas like to talk about judgment, but, really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time?

Originally posted to rogue robot on Wed May 06, 2009 at 08:32 PM PDT.


Obama's next nominee for SCOTUS?

68%79 votes
31%37 votes

| 116 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  The Politics Of Pettiness, Poking Eyes (10+ / 0-)

      and Vengeance? No thanks.

      That is all. Individually, I wish you the best, but collectively, my dearest hope is to outlive you - groovetronica

      by Nulwee on Wed May 06, 2009 at 08:38:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  2000 Bush vs Gore was those 3 (0+ / 0-)
        •  it was none of those (0+ / 0-)

          It was about greed pure and simple, and the powers that run this country forcing an honest man out of the office he had rightfully won and installing their puppet instead, so that they could continue to run this country like their private kingdom.

          Had nothing to do with "pettiness, poking eyes, or vengeance." It was strictly business.

          "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

          by limpidglass on Wed May 06, 2009 at 10:07:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  One word: JUSTICE (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That is, I think I disagree...

        Why should Obama pick Al Gore for Supreme Court Of The United States?  The answer is one word.  PAYBACK.  

        ...with the answer, not the choice.  I love Al Gore and I'm ticked he's not included on the Recommended List diary poll right now.  That is, thanks for the diary.

        •  the only real justice (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DBunn, Piaffe

          would be to see President Albert Gore, Jr., but he decided the time wasn't right.

          Alas, he's freer to work on climate change as a private citizen than as the holder of the most powerful office in the world, sad as that fact may be.

          "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

          by limpidglass on Wed May 06, 2009 at 09:51:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tree, interrupted (0+ / 0-)

            William O. Douglas used his position on the Supreme Court to advocate for the environment in new ways, and the idea that natural things like trees and rivers should have standing in their own right to sue is one whose time has surely come:

            From William O. Douglas's wikipedia entry:

            "Trees have standing"

            In the landmark environmental law case, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice Douglas famously, and most colorfully argued that "inanimate objects" should have standing to sue in court:

            The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.

            He continued:

            "Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases.... So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it."

            In the early 1970s, Mr Douglas and his young wife Cathleen were invited by the late Dr Neil Compton and the Ozark Society to visit and canoe down part of the free-flowing Buffalo River in Arkansas, putting in at the low water bridge at Boxley. This experience endeared him to the river and the young organization's idea of protecting it. As such Mr Douglas was instrumental in having it preserved as a free-flowing river, left in its natural state. This decision was much to the chagrin of the area's Corps of Army Engineers, who were busily damming every river they could. 'Flood control' was usually their rallying cry. The act that soon followed designated the Buffalo river as America's first National River.[10]

            Ties with liberal causes and the environmental movement

            During the 1960s, he became a spokesman for liberal causes, writing a book published in 1969 entitled Points of Rebellion and controversially authoring a piece for Evergreen magazine. Justice Douglas also had extensive ties with the environmental movement. Besides his famous dissent in Morton, he also served on the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club from 1960 to 1962 and wrote prolifically on his love of the outdoors. He is credited with saving the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and inspiring the effort to establish the area as a national park; going as far as to challenge the editorial board of The Washington Post to go with him for a walk on the canal after it had published opinions supporting Congress' plan to pave the canal into a road.[11] His efforts convinced the editorial board to change its stance and helped save the park.[11]

            In 1962, Douglas wrote a glowing review of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring which was included in the widely-read Book-of-the-Month Club edition. He later would sway the Court in the direction of preserving the Red River Gorge in eastern Kentucky: a proposal to build a dam and flood the gorge reached the Supreme Court. Douglas visited the area himself (Saturday, November 18th, 1967). The Red River Gorge's Douglas Trail is named in his honor.

            I think there's room for Justice Gore to continue his environmental work and make the difference he needs to.

      •  Blatently politicize the supreme court? (0+ / 0-)

        Are you out of your fucking gourd? Oh, that would be a beautiful precedent to set....

    •  truly stupid revenge fantasy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      this kind of "thinking" is depressing to see.

      two cheers for democracy

      by ClaryinVT on Thu May 07, 2009 at 04:17:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You are factually incorrect. (8+ / 0-)

    There have been a number of Supreme Court appointees who were not judges before.

    Do some research and report back.


    "We can not figure out everything, but we can figure out some things." Wow, I just made that up today.

    by Translator on Wed May 06, 2009 at 08:36:24 PM PDT

  •  I don't think Al Gore would want to (9+ / 0-)

    He said as much when asked about running for VP.  I don't think the guy would want to abandon his current work for a lifetime appointment to the bench.

    The lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.

    by otto on Wed May 06, 2009 at 08:38:30 PM PDT

    •  I absolutely agree. (4+ / 0-)

      Gore's got a bigger field than the supreme court to plow. His focus is changing mindsets on global warming. That's a VERY big job.

      And hey, if the human-kind goes down, who cares about the supremes?

      Democrats promote the Common good. Republicans promote Corporate greed.

      by murasaki on Wed May 06, 2009 at 09:05:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why is it that no matter (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      what the position, someone thinks Al Gore should be in it?

      He has made it perfectly clear that HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE IN GOVERNMENT ANYMORE!!!

      If people love him so much, they should have some respect for his decision to remain a private citizen.

      In the age of the internet every citizen is the constituent of every elected official. It is SO easy to make small dollar donations now.

      by pvlb on Wed May 06, 2009 at 10:42:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  meh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    i kind of liked the idea of finding a gay person to put on the court.

    that would at least set up the court for a "do you respect your colleague" statement (like on the DC council recently) if a gay rights case ever goes to SCOTUS.

    thats always fun. we know marion barry isnt getting invited to a few peoples summer barbecues anymore after his vote on that.

  •  Too old (5+ / 0-)

    I want someone who's going to be on the court for a while.  Gore's 61 this year.

    •  I resemble that remark! (0+ / 0-)

      Warmest regards,


      "We can not figure out everything, but we can figure out some things." Wow, I just made that up today.

      by Translator on Wed May 06, 2009 at 08:41:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This shouldn't matter (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but those rightwing cranks are all way too young ... and as much as we like to yip and yell that the demise of the rethuglicans is imminent ... i, for one, am not as confident

      i like the idea of gore as a scotus ... but, if it is to be a white male, my vote goes for jonathan turley ...

      that said, i do believe it important for it to be a woman ...

      "I want to keep them alive long enough that I can win them to Christ," - Rick Warren, Professional Greed Driven Scumbag

      by josephk on Wed May 06, 2009 at 08:44:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gore (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Translator, thatvisionthing

    My very first thought after hearing there was going to be an opening was "Big Al Gore!!"  If there is a just god anywhere in this universe, Al Gore will  finish his long public service as a Justice on the Supreme Court.

    Yes we CAN return to the dark ages! Believe it.

    by bj57 on Wed May 06, 2009 at 08:46:56 PM PDT

  •  I suspect this is not on his to do list (4+ / 0-)

    Gore is quite busy enough frying those other fishes.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Wed May 06, 2009 at 08:47:11 PM PDT

  •  Why do we keep (6+ / 0-)

    demanding Gore do what Gore obviously doesn't want to do? He is happily doing what is important to him and having more effect than he ever thought he could.

    Do you think he could advocate for an issue while seated in the SC? They have to appear neutral (I know, like that ever really happens). Justices can not do what Gore does.

    And if you think appointing Gore to the court wouldn't be a nightmare politically I don't even know where to start.

    He finally gets to work on the environment. Let's let him do what he wants.

  •  Yea you can forget this one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, emilysdad

    but I understand your point.

  •  He likes what he's doing. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Plus it's really stupid.

    Pragmatic progressivism is the future.

    by Pragmaticus on Wed May 06, 2009 at 08:55:14 PM PDT

    •  It is not stupid. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      In fact, I think it's genius.  I like how Hendrik Hertzberg put it in The New Yorker:

      Mr. Justice Gore

      The biggest objection to putting Al Gore on the Supreme Court, I assume, would be that he’s not a lawyer. But is this really a bug rather than a feature? Gore spent sixteen years in Congress, where he helped make the laws, and eight as Vice-President, where he took care that the laws were faithfully executed. His perspective would fill some giant blind spots on the present Court, which is made up entirely of former federal appeals-court judges who have little or no political experience, have never been elected to anything, and have a strikingly narrow experience of life in general.

      A law degree is probably a helpful credential, all other things being equal, for a trial judge or an appeals-court judge. But it is far from essential in a Justice of the Supreme Court. The heart of a Justice’s job is interpreting and applying the Constitution, and for that things like a knowledge of history (including Constitutional history), a feel for the workings of government, a strong moral sense, an ability to think and write clearly, and a temperamental affinity for the long view—all of which Gore has in spades—are much more important than a professional familiarity with the details of contract or case law. Gore would make a superb addition to the Court. And, of course, it is pleasant to imagine the opportunity his appointment would afford the four remaining members of the Bush v. Gore junta, especially Antonin "Get Over It" Scalia, to contemplate and, perhaps, repent of their sins.

  •  Gore strikes me as a guy who is trying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to fill the role of Global Statesman and also act somewhat above the fray in Washington. I can't see him accepting, and I can't see him even being on a list.

    "You Can't Piss on Hospitality... I WON'T ALLOW IT!" Michael Waits, Troll 2

    by Larry Madill on Wed May 06, 2009 at 08:56:48 PM PDT

  •  Choice made in Heaven! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gustafgrapple, thatvisionthing

    Supreme Court Justice Albert Gore is a choice made in Heaven, but it ain't gonna happen - alas!  It is just too pointed, too 'zing,' too
    political for the 'soft' Obama to do it.  I wish he had the taste to do it, it would be a monumental act of courage and conviction and JUSTICE.
        And, quite in addition to that, Gore would be a splendid Justice; he has every qualification. In fact, I'd like to see him Chief Justice.
    I think the Senate would have to pass him rather quickly and without too much dissent; the real obstacle is Obama. He is just not that much of a party man -- or, you might say, a payback man.
         What might have been, what might have been!!!!!!!
    Oh, woe!

    •  Al would be GREAT. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I actually wrote a comment about this a couple of days ago in the open thread:

      I would LOVE to see Al Gore get the job

      Because I want somebody who understands that justice is an ecology, and that a toxic decision someplace will have disastrous consequences elsewhere.  Because I want someone who not only tries to do justice, but who tries to teach justice, to persuade.  Am I making it up that that is one of a justice's functions, to recognize that in every decision there is a teaching moment to bring together opposing sides?  

      Transcript: Gore remarks on Florida vote certification
      November 2004

      In all our hands now rest the future of America's faith in our self-government. The American people have shown dignity, restraint and respect as the process has moved forward.

      This is America. When votes are cast, we count them. We don't arbitrarily set them aside because it's too difficult to count them.

      In the end, in one of God's unforeseen paths, this election may point us all to a new common ground, for its very closeness can serve to remind us that we are one people, with a shared history and a shared destiny.

      So this extraordinary moment should summon all of us to become what we profess to be: one indivisible nation. Let us pledge ourselves to the ideal that the people's will should be heard and heeded, and then, together, let us find what is best in ourselves and seek what is best for America.

      Two hundred years from now, when future Americans study this presidential election, let them learn that Americans did everything they could to ensure that all citizens who voted had their votes counted. Let them learn that democracy was ultimately placed ahead of partisan politics in resolving a contested election. Let them learn that we were indeed a country of laws.

      See what I mean?  GREAT.  Sigh, I think he would have been a great president too.  We wuz robbed.

  •  No, no, no to Gore on SCOTUS. (5+ / 0-)

    All of the good work he is currently doing now and the work he would do in the future would end.  He couldn't campaign for candidates or raise money for them or issues.  He couldn't spread a progressive message on the tv or in film or book.  No one could take his place at present for what he is doing while there are many who could do a good job on the SCOTUS.  It is a non-starter.

    One bad thing was a train got crashed in New Jersey. People won't be late for work though, because the governor lady said, "I'm sending in more trains!"

    by msstaley on Wed May 06, 2009 at 09:08:12 PM PDT

    •  NOBODY can do a Good Job On Scotus (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Bush's majority is ironclad for 10 years and very likely for 20 years.

      This nominee is for the Sisyphus seat. God bless whoever accepts this sentence.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed May 06, 2009 at 09:14:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sure. Bush's Majority Will Hold 20 More Years. (0+ / 0-)

    Let's take Al Gore off his climate change mission, put him out of the public eye, and sentence him to 20 years of writing correct opinion full of truth and fury, signifying nothing.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed May 06, 2009 at 09:13:25 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, just not a good idea. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smarty jones

      Better idea ... if there is an opening in Obama's second term, appoint Gore's daughter Karenna to it.  She IS a lawyer and could probably outlast a conservative majority, eventually writing majority opinions while Roberts and Alito write for the minoority.

  •  While I think (0+ / 0-)

    that appointing Gore would be a nice big "fuck you" to the Republican block on the USSC, otherwise it's a bad idea.  He's too old, too white, too male, there are other people who are far more qualified than he is from a judicial standpoint, and he's got more important things to do addressing global warming and the environment, where he has more expertise and knowledge.

  •  Justice Gore (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matrix Dweller

    I would love to see Gore on the Court for the next 20-30 years.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed May 06, 2009 at 09:40:34 PM PDT

  •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

    He's busy rallying the world to fight the climate crisis, and we need him in that role.

    No disrespect to the Supreme Court, but appointing a world statesman with a Nobel Prize to sit on the court is a waste.

    There are few people who are qualified to be a justice on the Supreme Court, but there are multiple reasonable candidates for the job. But no one else can do what Gore is doing right now.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Wed May 06, 2009 at 09:44:49 PM PDT

  •  i think he'd just be a great justice. but i (0+ / 0-)

    like Harold Koh a lot, too.

  •  No. A woman. (0+ / 0-)

    minx 1952. You do the math.

    by chicago minx on Thu May 07, 2009 at 03:19:06 AM PDT

  •  I also think our elected 43rd, versus the (0+ / 0-)

    chimposter who served as 43rd would bring dignity to the court.  He was more Presidential in "defeat" than Bush was on any day of the eight years he swindled.

    When you look at all that followed from their fateful decision, it is easy to see that their decision had horrible consequences for our nation.

    They were enmeshed with Bush I, which prejudiced the court, there was a conflict of interest with a sitting governor who was a family member, and Daddy's CIA history and the whole family's enmeshment with the oil industry and the middle east was a powder keg waiting to blow.  These "justices", with the exception of Souter, defiled the Constitution and their office.  It is clear that they, themselves, are the product of a corrupt system.  

    You can see how wrong they were by everything that followed from that decision.

  •  Barack should say that Gore is on the list (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think that Al is totally committed to saving the Earth and is not interested. However, it would be good political theater for the President to indicate that he is considering Al and Al should likewise say that he hasn't made up his mind but would consider the appointment.

    Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy exposed themselves as political hacks in Bush v Gore. The Supremes lowered their stature by at least two grades in that move, from a B to a D, the decision itself was an F-. It would be appropriate that they would think that they might have to work with the man that they illegally screwed out of the Presidency, and in doing so screwed the country, the world and their own party. Democrats are way to gutless; these three scoundrels should be impeached for denying the Constitutional right of the voters of Florida to have their ballots counted.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site