Before everyone goes all ballistic on me, let me say I’m putting out the name of the former First Lady as an exercise at coming at Supreme Court nominations from a different perspective.
[THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL EXERCISE!!! — comments in brackets have been added to make this clear]
Please bear with me.
President Biden has confirmed he will nominate the first black woman for the Supreme Court — as well as specifying that his selection will be highly qualified with all the other expected job capabilities.
For the record, let me state that I have no problem with President Biden making and attempting to carry out this promise. Race and Gender as selection criteria are just as legitimate as promising to nominate people who will overturn Roe V. Wade, will be ‘Non-Activist”, and so on.
We vote for people who appoint judges in part because we are voting for the kind of judges they will appoint. To pretend there is no partisan aspect to the matter is a particular form of idiocy — or hypocrisy if you are a Republican.
No one can argue that Michelle Obama is not black or not a woman (Right-Wing slanders to the contrary) — but what about the rest?
Consider that she IS an attorney, one who has practiced law. While she has not been a judge, she has had practical experience as a lawyer — and reportedly was not entirely thrilled with it. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Her own experiences in school, the subsequent years, and more recently her time as FLOTUS give a her a base of life experience that would enrich the perspective of the Court. It would certainly be in sharp contrast to the backgrounds of the three most recent appointees.
No one can argue that Michelle Obama has not already been the subject of extreme public scrutiny. (Translation — Right Wing character assassination attempts.) Her character is a matter of record, as is her standing with the public, FWIW.
[Okay — that’s the theoretical case — here’s the situation for context.]
Frankly, there’s a case to be made for going beyond the ranks of sitting judges to choose a Supreme Court Justice, and there is historical precedent. The Supreme Court after all is in a sense a kind of meta-court; they may have to go to the theoretical underpinnings of the rule of law to determine what the law is or should be from case to case. No one can claim all relevant knowledge of the law is to be found in a courtroom. Legal skill is required, but so is an understanding of the larger world.
The Right Wing has embarked on a decades-long project to nurture “larval Scalias” as Charlie Pierce calls them, ideologues fast-tracked through the ‘right’ law schools and judicial appointments, inculcated with conservative values. These people are nominated because they are willing to embrace legal absurdities to get what they want — and we should remember the warning about that.
Consider floating the nomination of Michelle Obama as an exercise in thinking outside the box, and see where else it might lead.
As it is, the highly-qualified candidates Biden is considering will, as judges, have every single decision they’ve handed down evaluated and scored by everyone looking for an angle to exploit, a hunt for “gotchas”. Widening the search for candidates beyond judgeships would monkey-wrench that exercise somewhat.
{Disclaimer: The following is speculation for entertainment purposes only.]
There’s also a certain amount of schadenfreude in picturing the exploding heads on the Right if Biden even hinted Michelle Obama was a candidate. Having had her husband in the White House has brought them to the brink of a new Civil War. Tucker Carlson would probably have a stroke.
(I don’t think it was an accident that Justice Breyer referenced Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address at the White House ceremony today.)
Michelle Obama would probably never forgive Joe Biden for the massive Right-Wing hissy-fit that would result — especially given the risk of open violence now coming from the right. But the prospect is still tempting in some ways.
If the Right is happy to have Justice Clarence Thomas siting there with a devout Trump supporter whispering in his ear, there’s a certain parity in considering a Justice Michelle Obama could count on the private advice of someone with a distinguished legal and political background, with particular expertise in constitutional law.
The good lord knows the court could use it.
[Conclusion — back to the real world]
Best wishes to the candidate who gets the eventual nod, and good luck. The Right Wing seditionists will go nuclear on whomever gets the nomination. Whom they can’t destroy they will try to delay — and they will certainly defame.
Damn the McConnells — full speed ahead!
UPDATE:
Jeebus people!
Before anyone else comments, I am clearly indicating this is an exercise in thinking differently about nominating someone for the Supreme Court. I am NOT seriously pushing Michelle Obama for the seat — I am simply using her as an example to examine how the process of selecting someone could benefit from some fresh thinking.
Examples are limited because we are starting with black and female as a criteria. And while nominees don’t have to be judges, they do at least appear to need to be lawyers. Harris already has an important job — if anyone wants to come up with other people who are black, female, and lawyers, but not judges, please feel free to do so.
If that limitation was not already on the table, suppose this had been about nominating Barack Obama for the Court? We could also talk about considering Asian-Americans, LTBGQ Americans, Atheist Americans, etc. But that’s not where we are at the moment.
The poll clearly states nominating her would be in an IDEAL world — not the one we have. Adjust your expectations accordingly.