Obama for Supreme Court? Absurd!
H.D.S. Greenway’s May 10 Boston Globe op-ed headlined “Obama for the Supreme Court” is one of the most absurdly stated, unsubstantial editorial pieces I’ve seen in my nearly 50 years of observing, writing, and editing about politics and government.
Greenway gives the following reasons for Obama being worthy of the high court:
- His terms as senator and president make him highly qualified. This point’s generality makes it the only seemingly sensible one of Greenway’s four reasons, but it makes no logical sense. Why? Because Obama’s actions in office have constantly gone against the U.S. Constitution and international law. Let’s cite just three areas: (a) freedom of the press; (b) habeas corpus , and (c) invasion (aggressive war) of foreign countries.
- Here are just two instances of Obama’s efforts to illegally attack the press: (1) the FBI’s stealing phone records from reporters for the Associated Press; and (2) the Justice Department’s relentless effort to intimidate and jail Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter James Risen. We included the illegal FBI-AP wiretapping in our column “None’s Well That’s Orwell”. We complained in depth about Justice’s badgering threats to Risen in our column “National Security Depends on Press Freedom”.
- Obama had written into the National Defense Authorization Act, and signed it, the power of the president to have the military arrest — without charge — anyone worldwide, including American citizens, who he deemed a terror threat to the U.S. If that doesn’t sound like Nazi Germany to you, then you’re not listening. He also has stalked government whistleblowers – loyal government employees who cited illegal activities in government – having them imprisoned instead of jailing the criminals within his administration. That may not be habeas corpus, but it’s the sign of a dictator, not a president. He also had drones assassinate two American citizens (one a teenager) without trial, which constitutional lawyers have loudly questioned.
- We’ve covered Obama’s illegal invasions of foreign countries ranging from Libya to Syria, and overviewed his use of aggressive war through his following the policies of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. And we’ve written about his relentless buildup of nuclear weapons. No one with that kind of record should be on our highest court or on any judicial bench.
- Greenway states,“Clinton owes him one.” Nominations to the Supreme Court shouldn’t be judged by who owes whom politically. The president should determine a nomination about what legal mind would be vital and beneficial to the people of the United States. Just because politicians make self-interested appointments doesn’t mean a journalist should condone them; he should, in fact, condemn them.
- Greenway notes “there is precedent for such an appointment”: nearly a century ago President William Howard Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court. But such precedent should not take precedent over legal qualifications, and Obama’s abuse of the Constitution and his office should disqualify him for the court.
- Greenway’s final less-than-reasonable reason: “Obama will need a job.” Yeah. So do millions of other Americans who can’t get full-time jobs in our nation with real over 9% unemployment, including masses of college graduates chained to a trillion-dollar college loan debt. “Obama will need a job.” LOL.
It’s mystifying that the Boston Globe, with its solid record of responsibly uncovering scandals, would allow such a scandal as Greenway’s op-ed to be published. The president’s history of unconstitutional, dictatorial actions logically certify him as deserving of –not a court nomination – but impeachment and war criminal status. And while we’re at it, put him in the cell with Bush, Cheney and their war hawk buddies. And in the same cell block with the Millionaire Congress that supports endless war rather than the American people.
The fact is, if they were to go before the International Criminal Court, they probably would be punished. But the reality is this: the United States government refuses to join the International Criminal Court, fearing the consequences of its global crimes.