Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Justice Obama?

By Eva Rodriguez

Mr. President: Stop your search. I've got the perfect candidate for that soon-to-be vacant slot on the Supreme Court.

She's a Harvard Law grad with a Princeton undergraduate degree. She was a lawyer in private practice with a prestigious national law firm. She worked in-house for a large and complex medical facility. She's also paid her dues in local politics and knows a thing or two about the national political arena -- yet she doesn't have much of a paper trail.

And this woman clearly has the empathy gene you've been looking for. (I have a feeling you'd hit it off during the one-on-one interview.) She knows first-hand how difficult it is to strike the right work-life balance. She knows what it's like to put your career on hold to help a partner, a husband fulfill his dreams. She has spoken eloquently about the plight of single moms and their challenges in making ends meet and finding quality child care. She knows through her own experiences and those of her family how far this country has come in eradicating racism and how far it still needs to go.

And -- to state what is by now obvious -- she is a woman of color. Best of all, Mr. President, she already lives right here in the nation's capital and could walk to work. Think of the benefits to the environment!

Jack had Bobby. You'll have Michelle. Whether you call her First Lady or Madame Justice is up to you. Being commander in chief has its privileges.

To be fair, there may be a few drawbacks to this appointment, not the least of which will be the separation of powers issue. It may at times get awkward when Justice Obama is forced to review legislation you signed into law. And you really shouldn't try to coax her to reveal how the court -- read: Nino Scalia -- is leaning on a particular matter; you'll have to wait just like the rest of us to read slip opinions when they're published. You may be the former constitutional law professor, but she'll have the last word on what "the law is." She'll also have to wave goodbye to bare arms since she'll be forced to spend big chunks of her working hours in robes.

One last thing: Since you'll be the only parent working from home once Justice Obama is sworn in, you'll be in charge of Bo. (Maybe Rahm could help with that.)

By Eva Rodriguez  | May 19, 2009; 1:17 PM ET
Categories:  Rodriguez  | Tags:  Eva Rodriguez  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Whom Would a Truth Commission Hurt?
Next: Democrat Party! Socialism! Karl Marx!


Typical Washington Post Drivel. How about some serious journalism instead of this idiocy. She's First Lady for at least the next 3+ years. After that, I'd support her for the supreme court. In the meantime STFU.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | May 19, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Funny, and it makes a good point. She'd be great! I'd regret that it's impossible, but her full-time job as First Lady can't be performed by anyone else.

Posted by: MaineWoman | May 19, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

This lady intent to be funny or sarcastic but as far as I understand she failed.Miss Rodriguez could not hid her criticism. To start with Bobby Kennedy he did a tremendous work in justice, specially examining the operation of the mafia in America dispite the fact that J.Edgard Hoover used to say there was no mafia in in the United States of America.

Posted by: zorro37 | May 19, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"Funny, and it makes a good point. She'd be great! I'd regret that it's impossible, but her full-time job as First Lady can't be performed by anyone else."

Not to mention that a high-ranking member of the judicial branch and the top guy in the executive branch probably can't be married to each other. Bit of a conflict...

But after President Obama's two terms are over? Go for it!

Posted by: kjohnson3 | May 19, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Probably illegal. Nepotism, yeah, smart idea.
Obama will not get reelected Kjohnson, get off the kool-aid

Posted by: RobertBourbon | May 19, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Obviously qualified and no Bob, not nepotism, that would require one of Obama's children. Not illegal either.

Interesting idea. I like it.

Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | May 19, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

No doubt Mrs. Obama is qualified, and she'd make a terrific Justice. Politically impossible right now, but after Barack's eight years are up....

Posted by: thrh | May 19, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Nepotism is family members, not just children.........Congress paseed that law after JFK put RFK in a job. Yes, illegal

Posted by: RobertBourbon | May 19, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Oh how the Obama haters would just explode! Yeah, it's probably illegal since congress passed a law to not have another JFK/RFK situation (according to someone else on this page). But just the mention of this idea should have some ditto-heads and "great americans" literally blowing their tops!

I am sure some will come after WaPo for even having the audicity to suggest it! Can't wait to read them justify their bitter hatred for all things Obama.

Posted by: crw901025 | May 19, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Not a thing wrong with the idea except that it is illegal, it is stupid and it is not going to happen. Those of you whose eyes are glazed over by virtue of your Obamaworship had best sober up.
Graduation from law school doesnot get it. Years of experience, judicial ability combined with acceptance by peers in the legal community, outstanding resume, and good character are just starters. There about one thousand wannabe applicants just in Washington DC. Ms. Obama already has a job.

Posted by: drzimmern | May 19, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Drzimmern writes;

"Not a thing wrong with the idea except that it is illegal, it is stupid and it is not going to happen. Those of you whose eyes are glazed over by virtue of your Obamaworship had best sober up.
Graduation from law school doesnot get it. Years of experience, judicial ability combined with acceptance by peers in the legal community, outstanding resume, and good character are just starters. There about one thousand wannabe applicants just in Washington DC. Ms. Obama already has a job."
Umm... Did you really not get that this was a joking, playful column? I hate to give anything away to Republicans, but if you are really interested in rejoining the mainstream of American political life and discourse, a pleasant attitude and a sense of humor are fairly well proven ways to bring people over to your point of view, win friends, and influence people, and generally are more effective than kneejerk spite.

I feel it is safe to say this since there is not a chance in the world the bitter angry Republicans of 2009 will take my advice. They are stewing in their own juice for the time being and apparently determined to remain that way.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | May 19, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"Graduation from law school doesnot get it. Years of experience, judicial ability combined with acceptance by peers in the legal community, outstanding resume, and good character are just starters."

Then why is Clarence Thomas on the SCOTUS? After a series of political jobs as an acolyte of John Danforth he served less than two years as a federal judge before being put on the court.

Posted by: kguy1 | May 19, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Although you the writer find this funny, amusing or just witty, it is not. Michelle is wonderful but, she is fine in the role she has.

Even she may find this a little ridiculus-I don't know. However, go back to the drawing board and airbrush your brain.

Posted by: Scar1 | May 19, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please. Michelle's over-paid hospital job was the result of her husband's payola legislation on behalf of the hospital. And since she quit her job, it's never been filled. Obviously, not a necessary position unless it's a beneficiary of state money. And has Michelle released her grades unlike her husband? Funny, how the college, university, and grad school histories of other presidents and first ladies are public knowledge--except for those of the Obamas.

Posted by: judithod | May 19, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

C'mon folks. There is room in the WP for a sense of humor. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez, for the dream and the tongue-firmly-in-cheek way of expressing it. Michelle is indeed admirable and qualified, and one can always imagine WHAT-IFs. No harm in that, and no waste of either electrons or trees.

Posted by: jimkahan | May 19, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what people want. They make up these ridiculous things when it comes to the Obamas. This is not a game to them or us as a Nation. She is very suited for the job but, she is fine as First Lady and the mother of two lovely daughters. This would be and incredible task-you would be talking "super woman" or something. You are kind of stretching it or you really had an off day and nothing to do.

Posted by: Scar1 | May 19, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: ktchvl | May 19, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Haha ... here they come ... the Obama haters. Now they want her grades published eventhough there is no serious proposal for this idea. I guess I should assume that she is really not intelligent, got into Harvard by accident, graduated at the bottom of her class, and really has no clue about judicial law or life in America. Oh .. for a minute I thought I was talking about George Bush!

I would love to see the grades, schools, and careers of the people who downplay her academic and professional background. It pains some to see someone like her succeed. Just can't give her credit I guess. Would you be more comfortable if she was an ebonics speaking high school single mom dropout on drugs? After all, many people still think that this is what she is supposed to be. We got a long way still to go people.

Posted by: crw901025 | May 19, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

In response to adrienne_najjar: "Typical Washington Post Drivel. How about some serious journalism instead of this idiocy. She's First Lady for at least the next 3+ years. After that, I'd support her for the supreme court. In the meantime STFU."

Um...this is an OPINION column.

Posted by: anny11 | May 19, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Pure crapola.

Posted by: Rehcab1 | May 19, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I say just nominate her arms for the Supreme Court, and she could stay first lady with some prostheses. The arms themselves are apparently being deified by liberal ladies and certain homo and metrosexuals, and I'm sure they'd be happy just to have them in the highest court.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | May 19, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"Empathy gene". How about empathy for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Americans citizens who want their freedoms?

"Empathy" to the Democrats is buying votes by redistribution of wealth and class warfare. We do not need any of this sort of "empathy" from this administration or any of their judicial nominees.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | May 19, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I hope this article was not in the printed version of the paper. And we wonder why journalism is going down. And here I am wasting time responding.

Posted by: gsms69 | May 19, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I hope this is intended as humor. If not, it's a complete waste of time -- by the author, the Post and the readers.

Posted by: cseam | May 19, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Sure Mrs. Obama isn't realistic, but I know someone else with a similar resume' who is. Associate Justice of the SCOTUS H. Clinton anyone?

Posted by: CraigBettenhausen | May 19, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

So Kennedys, Bushes, and Clintons aren't enough? Every politician we elect to public office now has to turn himself into a dynasty?

I'm a big Obama fan, but this suggestion is emblematic of a disgraceful royalist streak in our culture. There are so many talented lawyers out there who would do a better job than the ideological hacks on the Court today. The most imaginative choice we can come up with is the wife of the president??

This royalist streak reinforces the narrowing of choices presented to us in recent deacdes by the two major parties. After all, it's much easier to fundraise for someone whose name is familiar, or for someone who is already plugged in to established networks of power. Shouldn't we do our democracy a favor and halt this corrosion now? I think Michelle is great, but--Good God, folks, look around you a little bit. Respect yourselves and your fellow citizens who toil with integrity year after year outside the spotlight.

Posted by: gjosh | May 19, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Two reasons it's not going to happen while Mr. Obama is POTUS - and their names are Malia and Sasha.

I really doubt that both their parents would take high-energy, high-commitment top-level political jobs at once, while they're still relatively young. Maybe in sequence - I'd love to see her as a justice in about eight years - but not simultaneously. Kids need at least one parent with more freedom to be involved in their lives than either a President or Supreme Court Justice has.

(Not that I think it should always be the woman putting her career on temporary hold, mind you. If Chelsea Clinton were as young as the Obama girls, and Mr. Clinton were being considered as a justice (all questions of the merits of that choice aside), I'd hope he'd turn it down until Secretary Clinton was out of office, too.)

Posted by: Catken1 | May 19, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I think the Post was being humorous to bring up the absurd. But some are such blind worshippers of the Obamas that they take it seriously and ignore the blatant nepotism and lack of quals and say stuff like:

"No doubt Mrs. Obama is qualified, and she'd make a terrific Justice. Politically impossible right now, but after Barack's eight years are up...."

Mrs. Obama apparantly had an undistinguished track through Harvard Law. She was hired at a prestigious firm as a "Two-fer" then failed her 1st, then possibly 2nd Bar Exam. After finally passing the Bar, she served as an associate for 3 years, she then dropped her license and Bar membership, become a "Diversity Manager". In a series of positions owed mainly to Barack's political and UofChicago connections.

With her background, if her name wasn't Obama, she would have a hard time being appointed to any Federal or State judgeship, let alone SCOTUS.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 19, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I think this was quite a good reflection of political humor.

To the blind-faith followers, I think that she should own up to why her law license was revoked before touting such critical and ethical position in our court system. Not only should she own up to it, but back up her answer with factual evidence.

You see, call me silly, but I tend to question the intentions of someone who scrubs records and hides FOIA docs from the public.

Though, her nomination would make for interesting confirmation hearings and food for the blogosphere.

Posted by: lianna | May 19, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Sure, why not Michelle? She's immune from criticism- black, leftwing, empathetic by definition, and a darling of the press. And let me suggest a man for Senate chaplain. Jeremy Wright. He can begin daily proceedings by asking that "God Damn America!" Liberals will love that.

Posted by: mhr614 | May 19, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"Obama will not get reelected Kjohnson, get off the kool-aid"

Well, that's what they said about Obama being elected the first time...

Posted by: dcpsinsider | May 19, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Her qualifications boil down to: she worked as a lawyer and has a law degree. All the rest is irrelevant. Same as Harriet Miers. There must be something else to qualify a person to be a justice of the supreme court. Like decades of experience and constitutional scholarship.

And by the way, Bobby Kennedy was AG, not a justice.

Posted by: billmosby1 | May 19, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's see her LSAT scores first. An Ivy League diploma is no guarantee of high ability unless you are a non-legacy White or Asian.

Obama certainly isn't politically so stupid that he would appoint his wife to the Supreme Court... BEFORE becoming president-for-life.

Posted by: greg3 | May 19, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Yes , please Jesus, Yehweh, Allah, Great Pumpkin , is anybody there listening ? Appoint Michelle Obama . I double dog dare you please .Bork, Bork , Bork, Bork , Thomas, Thomas, .

Posted by: borntoraisehogs | May 19, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

PEOPLE! Can both sides, step back, take a deep breath and see this post as a tongue-in-cheek suggestion verging on the absurd?

Goodness gracious me! I know the political discourse in cyberspace tends to bring the extremes in us, but can't you see this suggestion was made as a joke?

Do you think Obama would be so foolish to even consider his wife, after the ruckus the conservatives have raised over the replacement of a moderate-to-liberal Justice by a liberal/progressive President? You people on both sides need to relax, perhaps watch a blockbuster or two, enjoy the beautiful day, enjoy the scenery and step away from the cyber-ramparts!

Now in the spirit of this blog, I doubt Mrs. Obama will agree hide her famous arms under a robe, especially as it doesn't come in purple or blue! :D And would that mean that for four or eight years a President and Mrs Associate Justice Obama have to sleep on different wings of the White House to avoid conflicts of interest? After all, we can't have the President unduly influencing a member of the Supreme Court!

Posted by: Kruhn1 | May 19, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Enough to make you vomit.

Posted by: mpg515 | May 19, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

The Post continues to drift into oblivion with some young writer (just out of Columbia or such) allowed to post such inane nonsense.

Posted by: jedrury | May 19, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of geniuses. You idiots would seriously support the appointment of Evita who has neither done nor achieved anything whatsoever in legal study or scholarship or practice?

Good God. Does Obama have naked perverted pictures of all of you handy?

Posted by: jshaver001 | May 19, 2009 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Please Eva, you have got to share whatever it is that you are smoking. America certainly does not need a socialist woman "of color" with an mean attitude on the supreme court. What madness is this that writers like you can even think of such a horrible idea. It's not so much that she is a "woman of color." It's the attitude.

Posted by: surfer-joe | May 19, 2009 9:47 PM | Report abuse

OMG! I thought Pelosi was going to replace Hillary as the GOP's new evil she-devil. Please dont get them started on Michelle Obama. Cable only has 24hrs a day to report GOP outrage. News like this could make them start a whole new network!!!

Posted by: tmcproductions2004 | May 19, 2009 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Who can really be happy until we have a blind one legged Albino hermaphrodite Fangres Pygmy with Tourette’s syndrome who leans to the left but drifts to the right on the Supreme Court? Isn’t it about time? Until then nothing makes sense and saddens me deeply.

Posted by: ekim53 | May 20, 2009 1:46 AM | Report abuse

Nice piece. If only!

Besides having both a big heart and a sharp brain, Justice Michelle would be a strong proponent for the "right to bare arms".

Posted by: PaulG2 | May 20, 2009 2:59 AM | Report abuse

Eva Rodriquez's pick for a Supreme Court justice sounds very good except for one big flaw; she is being recommended by...Eva Rodriquez herself. If this candidate share's Ms. Rodriquez's beliefs and arguments as written in her many commentaries that flaunt the Constitution and belittle the beliefs and practices of a majority cross section of Americans, then the president and the Congress had better keep looking. Our constitutional republic deserves nothing less.

Posted by: OIFVet06 | May 20, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Why is every one so angry? I thought it was a nice piece. And, I don't see how anybody could think it was a serious proposal. Not every article has to be serious - we all benefit from a little light hearted moment in our day, don't we? I understand that the remaining 15 Republicans are filled with the rage brought on by their self-inflicted irrelevance (which comes, in no small part, from their inability to engage in a meaningful discussion, let alone a serious debate, preferring to take contort every point made by a Democrat (I mean a damned pinky commie) far beyond the extremes of logic, but, geez, folks, the hatred is palpable. The article made me smile! The spewing in the comment made me sad for those who can seemingly find no joy.

Posted by: suzrobinson | May 20, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Eva's article is right on the money. Michelle for the BENCH. Why not; AMERICA would only benefit!

Posted by: gamma64 | May 20, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I just lost my breakfast! More Washington Post worship of the Obama's. It is sickening.

Posted by: reneethereseperry | May 20, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

This would be okay except for a big issue: she's the President's wife. This means that everytime there is a case in front of the court that involves the Executive Branch of the federal government, she would have to recuse herself or she would be disbarred.

Posted by: jbtowne | May 20, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Dear All:

What can I say? As congress is pressing for tax increases for the population due to their passage and inept enforcement of the laws, rules, and regulations governing our country it seems they should share in the economic downturn just like all of us are doing!

As most retirement plans have decreases on average of 50% it seems only fair that congress and the remaining federal government reduce their salaries, expenses and staff (total government employees) 50% also!

Something has to be done and it is up to the public to start the ball rolling for fiscal reforms to government employee benefits and salaries.

Why should we pay this President and congress to make these types of mistakes?

So stop complaining and get the ball rolling! Contact your local churches, clubs, meetings, town halls, and especially your state congressmen and tell them you want to pass laws cutting back congressional salaries, staff members, allotments and expenses! Be sure to discuss this at your next tea party!

Please pass this to all of your e-mail contacts and post on as many political news agencies on the net as often as possible until changes are made!

If you are faint of heart, I would appreciate your moral support!

Posted by: randall6666 | May 20, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

I guess the suggestion of Justice Ms. Obama is supposed to be a bit of comic relief, but I doubt that. And reading the Dem partisans responses it would seem they believe it was written solely to be a wistful thought for lib Dems (or raw meat before Republican eyes so they could be chastised for their expected response).

The point is how many responses say "of course she is well qualified". NOT! Just Stupid. I nominate Obama appoint Al Franken. Why not?

Posted by: PeterInFairfax | May 22, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Why not, Obama has made it very clear that he is not interested in serving our country, only in furthering his private agenda... The only thing scarier that this proposal is the fact that some people out there actually think (1) its serious, and (2) support it!

Posted by: traveler11 | May 23, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

There's an even more qualified candidate than Michelle Obama: my candidate represented clients in big business; served in elective office as a city councilor of a major city; served as president of a major city bar association; and her state bar association; and had administrative experience at the highest levels of government.

She is Harriet Miers.

Posted by: hyood | May 26, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company