Hillary Clinton for Supreme Court Justice.

[kentuck]

She has already stated that she doesn't want to remain as Secretary of State for the possible duration of the Obama Administration. She would be perfect. I am starting the campaign for Hillary for the Supreme Court right here. :-)

[beyurslf]

1. While I think she would be great, she is too old. We need someone to counter

the youngins that Bush put on there.

[Saturday]

2. I like it. nt

[zipplewrath]

3. Nah, we need a liberal

I'd rather see a liberal put in there

[Fire1]

13. Ditto!! n/t

[blm]

22. yep...an open government advocate who will side with the people over the corporate powers.

Too many damn corporatists on SC already.

[my2sense]

4. k&R

[Lost4words]

5. i would prefer someone on the left.

[Enrique]

6. not Obama's style

he'll probably go the normal route and nominate a judge.

[hedgehog]

7. I don't know - can the US health care system handle all those heads exploding?

[hedgehog]

8. How about a two-fer ? Hillary first than Bill?

[Deep13]

9. I want someone who will be enraging conservatives for decades. nt

[Myrina]

10. "Alan Shore" for SCOTUS!

Hey, a liberal girl can dream, can't she? :-)

[arcadian]

11. Enough with the Clintons

[Fire1]

14. Agree on that, too. n/t

[VMI Dem]

12. She is a moderate, which he seems to prefer.

[Captain Hilts]

15. Folks are still convinced he's a liberal. Go figure. nt

[tammywammy]

16. While Hillary has done well within her position as Sec of State

I believe there are more qualified candidates for the SCOTUS position. I'd prefer someone that's been actively practicing or teaching Constitutional law for a few years.

Also, if you're going to have a fight for a nominee, which rest assured there will be a fight, why not go for someone more to the left than Hillary?

[unblock]

17. i would prefer someone more liberal, but i love the idea of what it would do to right-whingers

as a practical matter, it would backfire politically. they've built up such a huge anti-hillary machine that even just her nomination to the high court would serve as lucrative fundraising and gotv fodder for decades.

plus, they'd use it to undermine the legitimacy of any decision with her name on it, especially if she were the deciding vote.

still, the idea of watching the inevitable republican hissy-fit of epic proportions is tempting!

[MilesColtrane]

18. That would be a ticket to a guaranteed Republican filibuster of her confirmation.

[blm]

19. I don't usually disagree with you, kentuck, but I do on this...she's not an open-government advocate

and when she HAD the opportunity to influence the King Kong of corporatism, Walmart, she consistently sided with their agenda and refused to stand up for the workers and consumers.

The LAST thing the court needs is ANOTHER corporatist.

She has SOME good in her record, but, not much when it comes to opening the government to the people and making it MORE accountable.

[damntexdem]

20. Either that, or when she's elected in 2016, she appoints Barack to the SCOTUS.

;-)

[Kievan Rus]

21. Obama should nominate an actual judge for SCOTUS

[scheming daemons]

23. Need someone younger (40s) who will be on the court for 3 or 4 decades

She's in her 60s. The SCOTUS slots are so valuable, that you want someone who can serve for at least 30+ years.


You don't want a Republican to get to replace her in the next decade or two.