During a campaign stop in Deocorah, Iowa on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton said she likes the idea of Barack Obama sitting on the Supreme Court.
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) January 27, 2016
“I would certainly take that under advisement,” she said. “I mean he’s brilliant, and he can set forth an argument, and he was a law professor, so he’s got all the credentials.”
She added “we do have to get a Democratic Senate to get him confirmed so you’re going to have to help me on that, OK?”
This is nothing new. In 2015, before she announced her run, Clinton floated the idea of appointing Obama to the Supreme Court. She also mentioned possibly appointing him to her cabinet.
“I would of course consider him for the Supreme Court,” Clinton said. “I believe he would make a great justice, and he’s certainly qualified for the role. No US President has ever gone to the Supreme Court, nor has any individual ever served in all three branches of our government, so it would be unprecedented. But I agree; he’d definitely make for a great Supreme Court Justice, at a time when we need those seats filled with strong independent minds.”
Clinton’s claim regarding Obama’s professorship is as phony as everything else about her campaign. Obama was never a professor. He wasn’t even an adjunct.
According to Doug Ross, who spent some time with the facility members who worked with Barack Obama in Chicago, the University of Chicago “law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.”
Obama, according to Ross, was “lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings” and “it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool.”
Furthermore, Ross doubts Obama edited the Harvard Law Review “because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).”
Obama taught two courses at the University of Chicago, “Racism and the Law” and “Constitutional Law III.” Both concentrated on race and other trendy social issues such as “gay rights” and in vitro fertilization.
“Obama appears to have never taught the structure of the Constitution nor the history behind it, nor any of the other areas of doctrine that constitutional scholars must master—standing, justiciability, Commerce Clause, Tax-and-Spending Clause, Contracts Clause, separation of powers, international relations, First Amendment (a huge area by itself), the rest of the Bill of Rights, etc. etc.,” writes Rob Natelson, the Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence.
Obama would make a great Supreme Court appointee for the progressives. He is not only an avowed enemy of the Constitution. Radical progressives hate the Constitution and are eager to undermine it.
In 2012 Louis Michael Seidman, remarkably a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, wrote a scathing piece for that great liberal bastion, The New York Times.
“As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken,” Seidman writes. “But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”
Obama touched on these “evil provisions” during an interview with NPR in 2012. He said the Constitution places “essential constraints” on the government’s ability to provide positive economic rights.
Of course the Constitution says nothing specific about a governmental role ensuring “positive economic rights” and this has bothered liberals since FDR tried to pawn off his “Second Bill of Rights” in 1944. FDR’s “economic truths” included the right to a useful and remunerative job, a home, medical care, an education and more.
As a Court justice Obama will undoubtedly work to remove the “essential constraints” underlined in the Tenth Amendment and institute the Marxist maxim: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, a concept at odds with the laws of nature that has never worked and was used as an excuse to murder tens of millions of people in the 20th century.
Follow Kurt Nimmo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/kurt_nimmo