General Discussion

StarrGazerr

(60 posts) Sun Dec 1, 2013, 02:34 PM Dec 2013

Can a President Nominate Himself (or Herself) to the Supreme Court?

I was having a discussion with some friends about William Howard Taft. Doris Kearns Goodwin is out with a new book called "The Bully Pulpit" which is about the relationship between Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft. It turns out that Taft wasn't as interested in becoming President as most candidates have been, and actually was more interested in serving on the Supreme Court. Supposedly Roosevelt had assured Taft that if the Chief Justice chair became vacant while he was President he would appoint Taft to the seat. Unfortunately for Taft, there was no vacancy for a Chief Justice during TR's term. Ironically, while Taft was President, the Chief Justice chair did become vacant, but Taft didn't believe he had the authority to nominate himself to the seat.

So I decided to take a look at the Constitution. All the Constitution says on the subject (Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2) is:

(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to ... appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court"

There's nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that sets out who is eligible to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. Nothing requires him or her to be a citizen, a member of the Bar of at least one state, any given age, or any other qualification. In theory, a President could nominate Vladimir Putin to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, one would hope that Congress wouldn't 'advise and consent' if a President went totally off the rails.

But the bottom line seems to be that there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents a sitting President from nominating himself to the United States Supreme Court. Congress still would have to approve the appointment, and the person would have to convince the Senate that not only he or she was qualified to sit on the Court, but also that his or her Vice President was qualified to become President. But if Congress agreed to the nomination, it doesn't seem, to me at least, that the Constitution would be at all offended.

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can a President Nominate Himself (or Herself) to the Supreme Court? (Original Post) StarrGazerr Dec 2013 OP

I'm not sure Obma would be the best candidate for the USSC given his interpretation hlthe2b Dec 2013 #1

+1000! n-t Logical Dec 2013 #3

Obama is qualified treestar Dec 2013 #6

He's certainly qualified, but as soon as you thought to mention Scalia, your point is lost... hlthe2b Dec 2013 #7

I am not able to censor anyone treestar Dec 2013 #8

Most of us thought that would be the case vis-a-vis his constitutional interpretation of NSA actions hlthe2b Dec 2013 #9

I never mentioned President Obama StarrGazerr Dec 2013 #11

as my qualifying statment makes clear... n/t hlthe2b Dec 2013 #12

The Senate would just have to confirm, it is an optics issue. TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #2

I can't imagine that any President would do that, ever. MineralMan Dec 2013 #4

I dream of Obama nominating Russ Feingold to SCOTUS. PeaceNikki Dec 2013 #5

On the other hand ... StarrGazerr Dec 2013 #10

ok.... PeaceNikki Dec 2013 #13

President Hillary Clinton nominating President Barack Obama to the Supreme Court... CorrectOfCenter Dec 2013 #14

hlthe2b

(102,328 posts)

1. I'm not sure Obma would be the best candidate for the USSC given his interpretation

Reply to StarrGazerr (Original post)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 02:39 PM

Dec 2013

of civil rights and privacy law with respect to NSA surveillance and similar-- if that is what made you think of this....

I'd appreciate his support of women and LGBT rights, however, but I think the above is critically important as well...

Logical

(22,457 posts)

3. +1000! n-t

Reply to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 02:49 PM

Dec 2013

treestar

(82,383 posts)

6. Obama is qualified

Reply to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 03:14 PM

Dec 2013

and like all justices, would be required to follow the law (well except Scalia who gets away with it to some degree) rather than his personal opinions.

And it would be the Senate who decides, not some people on an internet board who think they know anything about the law.

hlthe2b

(102,328 posts)

7. He's certainly qualified, but as soon as you thought to mention Scalia, your point is lost...

Reply to treestar (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 03:20 PM

Dec 2013

BTW, there is nothing that prevents people on an internet forum from expressing an opinion--kindly stop trying to censor those with which you disagree.

treestar

(82,383 posts)

8. I am not able to censor anyone

Reply to hlthe2b (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 03:23 PM

Dec 2013

So I don't try.

But I am not to be censored either, and I do think Obama's opinions on any issue would be informed by actual legal knowledge as shown by passing law school.

hlthe2b

(102,328 posts)

9. Most of us thought that would be the case vis-a-vis his constitutional interpretation of NSA actions

Reply to treestar (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 03:29 PM

Dec 2013

during his Presidency...Sadly, it appears we were mistaken....

And if you can honestly say you have no qualms about USSC being strictly driven by law, rather than ideology, than again your point would have a lot more impact.... I don't think many here would agree--at least with the respect for 5/9-

StarrGazerr

(60 posts)

11. I never mentioned President Obama

Reply to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 05:11 PM

Dec 2013

I realize that any time someone raises a question of Constitutional interpretation it's inevitable that people will interpret it in terms of "this President" or "this Senator" or "this Justice", but I honestly didn't post this as a disguised "Should Obama be on the Supreme Court" question. I think it's interesting to think about all our Presidents. For instance, if Lincoln had lived out his second term, he would only have been 59 years old when he stepped down, and considering that Scalia is 77 that means he could have spent at least 18 years on the court.

hlthe2b

(102,328 posts)

12. as my qualifying statment makes clear... n/t

Reply to StarrGazerr (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 05:14 PM

Dec 2013

TheKentuckian

(25,029 posts)

2. The Senate would just have to confirm, it is an optics issue.

Reply to StarrGazerr (Original post)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 02:45 PM

Dec 2013

It just isn't seemly to nominate yourself to a lifetime position, I imagine that the politics would be very ugly unless it was some rare bird that was universally extremely popular and even that would be pushing it.

Just consider your reaction if say Poppy Bush had tried such a thing (much less his spawn).

There sure as hell isn't anyone on the radar worth the trouble.

MineralMan

(146,324 posts)

4. I can't imagine that any President would do that, ever.

Reply to StarrGazerr (Original post)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 02:55 PM

Dec 2013

It would be a very bad idea, and the Senate would be very unlikely to confirm such an appointment.

Interesting speculation, but it's not going to happen.