SCOTUS

Nice parting jab at the end.

Posted Wed, February 24th, 2016 8:00 am
Email SCOTUSblog

A Responsibility I Take Seriously by President Barack Obama

The Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It’s a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead.

It’s also one of the most important decisions that a President will make. Rulings handed down by the Supreme Court directly affect our economy, our security, our rights, and our daily lives.

Needless to say, this isn’t something I take lightly. It’s a decision to which I devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation with legal experts, members of both political parties, and people across the political spectrum. And with thanks to SCOTUSblog for allowing me to guest post today, I thought I’d share some spoiler-free insights into what I think about before appointing the person who will be our next Supreme Court Justice.

First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified. He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity. I’m looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.

Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role; who understands that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law. I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

But I’m also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. There will be cases in which a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment. That’s why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.

A sterling record. A deep respect for the judiciary’s role. An understanding of the way the world really works. That’s what I’m considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court. And as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they’ll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.
 
Manu Raju Verified account
‏@mkraju

Just asked Deb Fischer, Nebraska Republican, if she'd consider Sandoval as a Supreme Court nom. She said no. "It's not about the person."



2:10 PM - 24 Feb 2016
Tweet text

Reply to @mkraju


Chuck Gamble ‏@ChuckGamble1968 1m1 minute ago

@mkraju It's about a person, alright--Obama. For the GOP it's about Obama.
0 retweets 0 likes

The Caped Jackass ‏@CapedJA 2m2 minutes ago

.@mkraju Please ask how many days before election this "rule" asks for and why? Does it have anything to do with Lent? Groundhog's shadow?
0 retweets 0 likes
 
I agree that Obama should nominate and I agree that congress should hold the hearings. I just hope they only confirm a true constitutional judge (I know, I know - quit dreaming)
 
I have heard that phrase for years and still don't understand what people mean, "true constitutional"
please explain what you mean and how it would apply to life in 2016.
 
I have heard that phrase for years and still don't understand what people mean, "true constitutional"
please explain what you mean and how it would apply to life in 2016.

How about someone who doesn't vote in favor of Obamacare or gay marriage... 2 issues that have no constitutional authority in any capacity
 
my understanding is if there are interstate ramifications it does fall under the SCOTUS authority to decide legalities

Are you saying that is not true ?
 
my understanding is if there are interstate ramifications it does fall under the SCOTUS authority to decide legalities

Are you saying that is not true ?

Can you remind me where marriage is in the constitution? I'll go read up on and let you know once you tell me where to find it
 
marriage being a contract involving cross state issues is covered,

....

my 9th grade civics class told me the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of any legal contract.
 
then who arbitrates the terms of creation and dissolution of a marriage.

Both people want the dog -- or, visitation.
of course that is the purview of the courts
 
Back
Top