Here's a new way of looking at it. Let's rate the presidents according to their Supreme Court appiontments (hey, why not?). I won't do Nixon since I was born in the middle of his term. But all other presidents in my lifetime:
Ford:
Stevens: 3/10 Like the rest of the right wing of the court, just an abomination on social issues and expanding so-called civil liberties way past the point of creating a level playing field. But not too bad on some states rights and other fed/state issues.
Overall presidential grade: Fail. He appointed one, and that one was a bad appointment.
Carter:
No appointments
Reagan:
O'Connor: 6/10. She is kind of all over the board. Some good dissenting opinions in some of Roe v. Wade's progeny. But some of her First Amendment analysis is...
She often tries to come up with a practical, "common-sense" approach, which sometimes works and sometimes gets her into trouble.
Scalia: 9/10. Why it is so hard for some other justicies on the Court to grasp that the Constitution means what the Constitution says is beyond me. Agree or disagree with him, but his opinions
always provide a sound Constitutional and historical basis for his decision.
Kennedy: 5/10. The infamous swing voter. What does he stand for exactly? Who knows?
Overall presidental grade: Pass. C+, maybe a B- on a good day. Scalia appears likely to be one of the two best judicial appointments in my lifetime. But the two others could have been better.
Bush I:
Souter: 1/10. Really, George?? Really??
Thomas: 7/10. Mostly good decisions, but some that just seem out in left field. Maybe he really deserves an 8, but I'm giving him a 7 today just because I'm not in a very charitable mood.
Overall presidential grade: Pass, but just barely. C-. Thomas was, overall, a good appointment. Despite his quirks, he is solid and is a Constitutionalist. But it's hard to explain Souter (although it has been said that Souter did a masterful job of keeping is ideology to himself prior to his appointment).
Clinton:
Ginsburg and Breyer: 1/10 each. They're interchangeable, really. Forget the Constitution. It means whatever fits society at any given moment. Really? Why are these people on the High Court?
Overal presidential grade: Fail.
Bush II:
Roberts: 7/10. Seems fairly solid and fairly conservative on most important issues, but perhaps a bit softer than some of his other colleagues. But not bad.
Alito: 8/10. Or, "Scalia light," as he was called early on. Good blend of being a strict Constitutionalist and informed historian, while also being significantly less prickly than Scalia.
Overall presidential grade: Pass, with flying colors. This is at least one area where he did extremely well.
Obama:
Sotomayor: 5/10, maybe a 6/10 on a good day. Ideologically, she's a mess. But I have to give her credit for sticking to precedent and making common sense rulings, even when they cut strongly against her ideological views.
Kagan: 5/10. More moderate than the rest of the liberal bloc of the Court, and although it is still very early in her term, she seems to do a decent job of keeping her more liberal views out of her decision-making process when not supported by precedent. Time will tell how she shakes out.
Overall presidential grade: Fail. Perhaps not as hard as some others, but still. I'd give him a D, maybe D+.
Topic: Obama, the daily thread on policy, and anything Obama (Read 49635 times)
