Clinton as Supreme Court Justice?

[kay1864]

An idea floated by a WaPo columnist below. Me, I think it might cost Obama more votes in the GE than it would win him, but who knows. Maybe the people who would vote against Obama for nominating "another activist judge" would vote against him anyway?

Either way, such a move would win him more Clinton voters than namimg her as VP would, a point made by the columnist below.

<snip>

It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy. Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one.

Obama could also appreciate Clinton's undeniably keen mind. Even Clinton detractors have noted her remarkable mental skills; she would be equal to any legal or intellectual challenge she would face as a justice. The fact that she hasn't served on a bench before would be inconsequential, considering her experience in law and in government.

If Obama were to promise Clinton the first court vacancy, her supporters would actually have a stronger incentive to support him for president than they would if she were going to be vice president. Given the Supreme Court's delicate liberal-conservative balance, she would play a major role in charting the country's future; there is no guarantee that a Clinton vice presidency would achieve such importance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com//wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052001571.html?hpid=opinionsbox1?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Captain Hilts]

1. She would be excellent on the Court. I've said that for years. NOT as a Veep. nt

[skooooo]

3. That's not a job you just "show up" for.

I want constitutional scholars on the bench.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Then you've eliminated a good chunk of the court's membership.

She is very much a details person who, by all accounts, is a hell of a lawyer.

The only reason I might oppose her is age.

[skooooo]

11. Examples??

Who on the bench has not served as a judge, and proceeded through different levels of jurisdiction??? HMM???

[SwampG8r]

27. you make the point for me

the reason our supreme court now is lacking is BECAUSE we havent place constitutional scholars on it
the Supreme court should not have anyone with a known political bias of either flavor

the job is interpretation of the constitution and it would behoove us to find someone with a knowledge of the constitution to do so

[SwampG8r]

31. since we are telling jokes on this thread

and hillary getting any job in an obama administration is funny as all hell
here one


a man calls his neighbor from outside america, and asks how his cat,
that he left with the neighbor was doing
"oh" said the neighbor "he was run over by a truck and killed"

"christ "said the man "you shouldnt just blurt that out like that,you should have worked into it gradually maybe start with 'oh your cat was on the roof and then...' so you dont drop such big news on me before im ready"
after comisserating over the cat the man asked his neighbor "so how is hillarys campaign going? she must be the nominee by now considering all she started with"
"well" said the neighbor "hillarys campaign is up on the roof....."

[skooooo]

2. Uh no.

She doesn't have any experience whatsoever as a judge.

[Cosmocat]

30. I am going to say this one more time ...

There is NOTHING the extreme right wingers hold more dear to their hearts than the SC, and there is ON ONE they HATE, with impassioned rage, then Hillary Rodham Clinton ...

There is not a president alive who could withstand the blowback to nominating her for SC, and it WOULD completely destroy any level of electability BO has now if he were to in any way associate himself with this concept in this election ...

This would be spun, VERY effectively by the right, as the dems backdooring the anti-christ herself into a position to legislate from the bench ...

Is not going to happen ...

[Mz Pip]

4. Works for me

after that, put Gore on. Scalia would explode. Yay.

[crankychatter]

5. too pro-corporate - I heard she failed the bar until she went to Arkansas

there are plenty of qualified jurists that would be more appropriate

[kay1864]

15. Not quite true....

Per Media Matters, she took both the DC and Arkansas exam in the summer of 1973. In November of 1973, she was informed she had failed the DC exam but had passed the Arkansas one.

So she didn't go to Arkansas to give it another try, as your post implies.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706010006

[crankychatter]

22. thanks for pulling my awareness up

:-)

I still would prefer a career jurist on the court

[kay1864]

32. Happy to help out!

And I tend to agree with you about career jurists.







But if it would help Obama beat McCain... :P

[BlooInBloo]

6. I'd be ok with it, for several reasons. Not the least of which is that...

it removes her from any election ever again.

[skooooo]

8. Do qualifications or experience mean anything?

This is not a political decision to play with by just putting people you like or agree with on some issues on the bench.

Jesus people, wake the fuck up.

[BlooInBloo]

12. For that job, it's not my #1 requirement, no.

[skooooo]

14. Guess that's why you're not in the Senate...

...or House? Whatever - I prefer to keep conversations based in reality.

[SoonerPride]

7. She is unqualified to be a jurist. Sorry.

I want top judges, not political appointees.

She is not qualified for the job.

[mattclearing]

9. She failed the DC bar, so, um, no. n/t

[kay1864]

16. While passing the Arkansas bar. See post #15 above.

[slinkerwink]

17. Actually, leftcool pointed out she retook the DC bar and passed

I'm glad she corrected me on that one.

[mattclearing]

18. Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, she should just leapfrog every jurist in the nation then.

:D

[kay1864]

29. I can find no references supporting a second DC try

Surely it's something she would have mentioned in her book, or that Media Matters would have pointed out in their article above. Why would she mention keeping the DC rejection a secret for 30 years, yet not the later DC passing?

Doesn't ring true to me. Maybe leftcool was thinking of her passing the Ark. exam?

[ShortnFiery]

13. Hell NO!

:nuke:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

19. Can't see it

Her employment with The Rose Law Firm (she was their first female partner) is enough to put me off the idea. That firm's street cred is grounded in polluter-empowerment, union-busting and a warm, fuzzy relationship with WallyWorld.

No thanks.

[ecstatic]

20. I'm ok with a rumor in the liberal blogosphere but I don't want Obama

to come out and say this. It would have the same effect as putting HRC as VP or worse (as far as energizing repubs).

[burythehatchet]

21. I thought we wanted honest judges

[SoonerPride]

23. I'd also like qualified judges, not political hacks

She has not been a judge at the state, local, or appellate level.

She is terribly unqualified for the position.

[burythehatchet]

28. she is the antithessis of a jurist. Political animals do not make good judges.

[NJSecularist]

24. Hillary Clinton will be running as the nominee for the Democratic party this Fall.

And the Supreme Court is not the place for political favors.

[Straight Shooter]

25. Absolutely.

I'm probably projecting on this one, but I would ten times rather be a Supreme Court Justice than POTUS. The robes always have the ultimate power.

[MessiahRp]

26. Don't we already have enough pro-corporation, anti-worker judges on the court?

I don't think we need another.

Rp

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. She'd be checking the polls before making a decision.

Political hacks shouldn't be justices.

[Orsino]

34. All those years spent as a judge ought to be worth something.

Oh, wait.

I guess I can applaud the impulse to find a job for Clinton, but why one for which she's so unqualified? Why not let her flex her new-found concern for the working class as Secretary of Labor? She might impress me yet.

[book_worm]

35. I don't think she would be confirmed. I'd support it if Dems can get 60 votes in the Senate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. She's never shown anything but bad judgement.

IWR...

NAFTA..

NCLB..

Bankruptcy bill...

this entire campaign...

Not only no, but hell no.

[msallied]

37. What a HORRIBLE idea!

The whole idea of the Supreme Court is that it's supposed to be free from politicians. It's already been subject to the political winds as it is. This would make things profoundly worse and set a horrific precedent.

Oh and she's not a judge. If she gets approved by the Senate while they fought tooth and nail over Bush's appointments, it would be the height of hypocrisy. The idea is to get the most judiciously qualified candidates on the court. Not your favorite Democrat or Republican.

[invictus]

38. Throughout Hillary's campaign, she has shown herself unfit for any political office ...

... at least as a Democrat.

[tammywammy]

39. No thank you

I'd prefer a Supreme Court justice to be someone that's been quite active within the judicial system for years as a judge or a scholar of Constitutional law.

[barack the house]

40. It's the logical step as her seat may not be as assured after this campaign.