Obama for Supreme Court?

[Kauthar]

You mean to be tried by the supreme court?

[Nickel Empire]

I first thought this was to try Obama by the supreme court for some reason.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

You mean to be tried by the supreme court?

SCOTUS isn't a trial court.

[Genivaria]

I'd be okay with it.

[Des-Bal]

SCOTUS isn't a trial court.

Sure it is, assuming that in the time since I last checked Barrack Obama has become a state being sued by another state or a representative of a foreign government.

[Kernen]

Awful idea. The man is a second-rate lawyer with no respect for the rule of law or the restraints of the Constitution. Any vote he made would be under some agenda, an extremely stretched interpretation of the 14th amendment, or an outright denial of the Second and 10th.

So, because he wants to stop gun violence by add more gun control, he is against the second amendment? Gun rights are important, but they are not as important as the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Gun ownership is an enumerated right. The right to life is not, and is highly suspect considering a number of policies. Moreover, one can enshrine the former without compromising the latter.

However, none of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. You might try one of the gun control threads.

[Gauthier]

So, because he wants to stop gun violence by add more gun control, he is against the second amendment? Gun rights are important, but they are not as important as the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Gun ownership is an enumerated right. The right to life is not, and is highly suspect considering a number of policies. Moreover, one can enshrine the former without compromising the latter.

However, none of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. You might try one of the gun control threads.

"Owning a gun is a right, but not getting killed by one isn't."

[Nariterrr]

So, because he wants to stop gun violence by add more gun control, he is against the second amendment? Gun rights are important, but they are not as important as the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Gun ownership is an enumerated right. The right to life is not, and is highly suspect considering a number of policies. Moreover, one can enshrine the former without compromising the latter.

However, none of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. You might try one of the gun control threads.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights. Gun ownership is not.

[Grinning Dragon]

Gun ownership is an enumerated right. The right to life is not, and is highly suspect considering a number of policies. Moreover, one can enshrine the former without compromising the latter.

However, none of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. You might try one of the gun control threads.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights. Gun ownership is not.

The Declaration of Independence is a Constitutional Amendment?

[Nariterrr]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights. Gun ownership is not.

The Declaration of Independence is a Constitutional Amendment?

No, but it guarantees unalienable rights which trump government and law. Why do you think we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence and not the singing of the Constitution?

[The Great Devourer of All]

If he felt like it he might be a good one, but really, the man's been through eight years with four international military conflicts and a few diplomatic and economic ones, multiple legacy-worthy social and diplomatic changes at home and abroad, and constant ridicule from half the nation and parts of the world, with Republicans blocking virtually anything remotely associated with him or his approval.

He needs some R&R, and by that I mean Retirement And Relaxation.

[Nariterrr]

If he felt like it he might be a good one, but really, the man's been through eight years with four international military conflicts and a few diplomatic and economic ones, multiple legacy-worthy social and diplomatic changes at home and abroad, and constant ridicule from half the nation and parts of the world, with Republicans blocking virtually anything remotely associated with him or his approval.

He needs some R&R, and by that I mean Retirement And Relaxation.

True, but he would make a good justice.

[The Great Devourer of All]

If he felt like it he might be a good one, but really, the man's been through eight years with four international military conflicts and a few diplomatic and economic ones, multiple legacy-worthy social and diplomatic changes at home and abroad, and constant ridicule from half the nation and parts of the world, with Republicans blocking virtually anything remotely associated with him or his approval.

He needs some R&R, and by that I mean Retirement And Relaxation.

True, but he would make a good justice.

Perhaps, although I imagine it would take a while to get used to the differences between being a President and being a Justice. Not to mention how half the Republican party would virtually split from the nation and the other half would be mildly pissy for a few years.

[Grinning Dragon]

The Declaration of Independence is a Constitutional Amendment?

No, but it guarantees unalienable rights which trump government and law. Why do you think we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence and not the singing of the Constitution?

The DoI doesn't do that, the DoI lists the reasons for declaring independence, getting reluctant colonists to realize loyalty to the crown was a lost cause, the grievances against the mad king, and to encourage other nations to help. The Bill of Rights lists protected enumerated rights.

[Distruzio]

Let the man rest.

Agreed.

[Brandenbourg-Anhalt]

Only if the U.S. is really running short on sane people to put in positions of power.

If you appoint me as a Supreme Court justice, then bring a case alleging that Supreme Court justices must wear giant fruit-based hats, I will vote to agree, especially if Scalia remains on the bench.

To be absolutely inappropriate, I am just looking forward to the day Scalia drops dead

[Kernen]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights. Gun ownership is not.

Not according to the Constitution. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren't specifically enshrined in any constitutional amendment, and can be taken away, provided one's due process rights are met. That's why we have the death penalty and incarceration. Incidentally, so can gun rights, but those are specifically enumerated. If you wish to better discuss this, take it here.

"Owning a gun is a right, but not getting killed by one isn't."

Kinda funny how that works, huh? From a Constitutional perspective, it certainly does seem that way, the right to life not being anywhere. I suppose it's because the right to own a gun is protected from intrusion by the state in the 2nd Amendment, whereas being killed by another citizen is an issue for the state.

[New confederate ramenia]

Can't take a banter mate?

"Obama should go to jail"
"Why?"
"BANTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

It's just a prank bro

[Aidannadia]

Well, Taft did it. He has a background as a constitutional lawyer... (I believe?) and he could definitely look into becoming a judge.

I wouldn't mind it, but I don't think it will happen foor another.... 10-20 years?

[Kernen]

Well, Taft did it. He has a background as a constitutional lawyer... (I believe?) and he could definitely look into becoming a judge.

I wouldn't mind it, but I don't think it will happen foor another.... 10-20 years?

He wouldn't be reliably impartial on important issues as a justice, and is entirely too politicized a figure to be an impartial judge at the federal level. There are many more moderate liberal candidates available to choose from.

[Greed and Death]

You mean to be tried by the supreme court?

SCOTUS isn't a trial court.

There are a handful of times SCOTUS is.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1251

Also the chief justice does have a part in impeachment trials when the trial involves POTUS.

[Farnhamia]

Well, Taft did it. He has a background as a constitutional lawyer... (I believe?) and he could definitely look into becoming a judge.

I wouldn't mind it, but I don't think it will happen foor another.... 10-20 years?

He could run for Congress. John Quincy Adams did.

[Aidannadia]

He wouldn't be reliably impartial on important issues as a justice, and is entirely too politicized a figure to be an impartial judge at the federal level. There are many more moderate liberal candidates available to choose from.

Why do you believe he wouldn't be reliably impartial on important issues?

@Second part: I'm sure. That's a fair assesment.

He could run for Congress. John Quincy Adams did.

Yes, he could pull a poor old JQA. But at the same time, imagine this:

>By some miracle he is named Speaker.
>Crackpot theories ensue. Eebul gubment Obammer wunts to rool 3rd term.

[Greater North American Union]

He wouldn't be reliably impartial on important issues as a justice, and is entirely too politicized a figure to be an impartial judge at the federal level. There are many more moderate liberal candidates available to choose from.

Why do you believe he wouldn't be reliably impartial on important issues?

@Second part: I'm sure. That's a fair assesment.

He could run for Congress. John Quincy Adams did.

Yes, he could pull a poor old JQA. But at the same time, imagine this:

>By some miracle he is named Speaker.
>Crackpot theories ensue. Eebul gubment Obammer wunts to rool 3rd term.

I mean to be fair Putin did set the precedent.

[Nariterrr]

Well, Taft did it. He has a background as a constitutional lawyer... (I believe?) and he could definitely look into becoming a judge.

I wouldn't mind it, but I don't think it will happen foor another.... 10-20 years?

He could run for Congress. John Quincy Adams did.

Why would he run for Congress?