Does de facto President Barack Obama want to appoint Eric Holder to the Supreme Court of the United States? Chuck Norris fears so. But he might want to take heart. Insurmountable resistance might come from a quarter no one expected.

The Eric Holder Supreme Court scenario

Eric Holder, outgoing Attorney General. Photo: US Department of Justice

Today Chuck Norris posted his opinion about Eric Holder on Townhall.com. In it he sketched out a dire scenario: Barack Obama nominates Eric Holder to be the latest Justice of the Supreme Court.

Norris first reviewed all the investigations Eric Holder has blocked, held up, or refused to start. Of those, CNAV has named three: the IRS scandal, Operation Fast and Furious, and Benghazi. Norris names many others. These include warrantless wiretaps by the National Security Agency and direct abridgments of the freedom of the press. (How ironic is this? A liberal attorney general for a liberal administration violating security of the person against unreasonable search and seizure, and abridging freedom of the press? Who’d have thought it?)

Norris then quoted Rush Limbaugh, who said this on his radio show:

There may be a Supreme Court vacancy, and I can see Barack Obama nominating Eric Holder to fill it, and it would be much easier for Eric Holder to make the jump from private-sector law firm rainmaker after six years at (the Department of Justice) to the Supreme Court than from DOJ straight to the Supreme Court. I don’t know how much that would matter, but don’t rule any of that out. I don’t think there’s any scandal. I don’t think it’s Fast and Furious. I don’t think he’s worried about the Republicans investigating anything if they win the Senate.

By rainmaker Limbaugh meant someone who attracts clients to a law firm merely by having his name on the door, though he might never actually prepare a contract or try a case. Eric Holder, says Limbaugh, could so attract clients merely on his reputation as a former Attorney General.

But how could a Supreme Court vacancy happen? Chuck Norris promises to explain that in more detail next week. But he might not have to worry.

Justice Ginsburg: I’m not going anywhere!

[ezadsense midpost]

The only Justice of the Supreme Court who is remotely close to death or retirement is Madame Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She joined the Court in 1993. Rumors have her suffering from cancer of the pancreas. In fact, surgeons took that cancer out back in 2009. ABC-TV said then the doctors might have caught it soon enough to save her life. (That doesn’t happen often with pancreatic cancer, but it does happen.) That was five years ago, and she is still as hale and hearty as ever.

Five days ago Jessica Weisberg interviewed Mme. Justice Ginsburg for the magazine Elle. Ms. Weisberg, or her editors, made a telling choice of headline:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “I’m Not Going Anywhere!”

Elle online offers an excerpt free to Internet viewers. That excerpt includes this relevant snippet:

[Q.:] I’m not sure how to ask this, but a lot of people who admire and respect you wonder if you’ll resign while President Obama is in office.

[A.:] Who[m] do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Democrats] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam…. I think I’ll recognize when the time comes that I can’t any longer. But now I can.

Advertisement

If that pancreatic cancer has come back after those surgeons took it out, she gave no sign. More to the point, Justice Ginsburg had three things she obviously wants de facto President Obama, Eric Holder, and anyone else who makes this his business to understand:

1. She will thank the would-be sextons to hold their shovels, if they please.
2. She holds herself more qualified than anyone else to carry the Progressive legal torch.
3. She doesn’t think any Progressive as good as she could get through the Senate.

That last could mean one or both of two things:

1. She doesn’t think an Eric Holder could get through the Senate even now, let alone after its margins tighten, or the Republicans flip it.
2. She does not want to see Eric Holder on the Supreme Court of the United States.

She elaborated on the first reason to Ms. Weisberg. The filibuster rule still holds for nominations to the Supreme Court. Republicans, with their current numbers, could keep Eric Holder off the Court even in a lame-duck session of the Senate.
But activist Nick Purpura suggested she genuinely might not want to see Eric Holder on the court. The reason: Eric Holder has shown monumental contempt for the law in his five and a half years as Attorney General. Whatever her political leanings, says Purpura, Justice Ginsburg respects the law. Such a person would not respect one who flouts it for personal or ideological reasons.
All these reasons suggest Eric Holder will not join the Supreme Court. Maybe Chuck Norris has thought of a way around these reasons. CNAV will wait eagerly for him to elaborate.

[ezadsense leadout]

[subscribe2]