As floated on MSNBC yesterday.
What do you think?
« May 31: FL Dems File Suit | Main | Romney's Upcoming Schedule: Busy »
Hillary Clinton, The Next Supreme Court Justice?
22 May 2008 02:31 pm
Comments (81)
She's smart enough, and well enough versed on the issues. But the qualifications end there. She's an unimpressive lawyer, with little to no experience in the Judiciary. She has the knowledge but lacks the experience (natch!). These last few weeks have made me question her judgment as well.
There have been many on the SCOTUS that were not judges before they were nominated, and they were highly successful. But they were, and Clinton would be, political appointees.
The best rallying point McCain could have is saying "look who Obama will appoint to the Court - Hillary!" Were he able to say that, he could almost guarantee a victory for himself.
Any list of great legal minds of our time will absent Ms Clinton. Her legal career was brief and hardly distinguished (even Miers was more accomplished as an attorney), and her character/ethical history is far from inspiring.
I'm hopeful that Obama will have the opportunity to appoint 3, possibly 4 SCOTUS justices in his time in office, but none of them should be Mrs. Clinton.
Sublime bait for the GOP. Even stronger than the threat of her on the ticket.
Would she have to pass the DC bar to qualify? I think she's failed it twice already...
Ha!
no.
Terrible, terrible idea. I'm not sure how she is qualified and I see no reason why Republicans would vote to confirm her. Could there be a more political appointment? Appointing a politician like Clinton sets a certain precedent that I think defies the [remaining] integrity of the Court. Plus she's not particularly young.
The best rallying point McCain could have is saying "look who Obama will appoint to the Court - Hillary!" Were he able to say that, he could almost guarantee a Republican victory.
Mrs Clinton's legal career was brief and undistinguished (even Miers was more accomplished as an attorney), and her character/ethical history is far from inspiring. I'm hopeful that Obama will have the opportunity to appoint 3, possibly 4 SCOTUS justices in his time in office, but none of them should be Mrs. Clinton.
She signed "with honor" not to campaign in Florida and Michigan and to unseat any delegation therefrom.
A person without honor should not be considered for SCOTUS.
That had to be floated by a Republican as a backwards way to gain support for McCain.
Obama would be much better finding a 40-something progressive that could influence the court for years and years and years. If Clinton had won the nomination (shiver), then Obama would be a wonderful pick for SCOTUS. But not the other way around.
We need a young 50ish judge with a deep progressive background. So, no. She hasn't had the depth and breadth of work as an attorney, she has a sketchy history, and there are a lot of good judges out there to pick.
She is a Senator from New York. What the heck else does she want as a consolation prize?
If Obama's desire is to fire up the entire Republican base then this is the way to go. It's a crazy idea, and I'm a Hillary supporter.
I'm with Marcus. This is great news-For McCain!
Whether or not Obama has any intention of appointing Clinton (who would be great, btw) to SCOTUS, or makes any public proclamation to that effect, the meme is now out there, and it should bring all kinds of people who would have been content to stay home in November out to vote against Obama.
THanks, MSNBC!
A couple of weeks ago, I'd have said sure. But her performance the last few days has instead led me to the conviction that it is wrong to offer the woman any respect, much less a position of power. She should be heckled out of the public square for making the cynical and debased arguments she's made the last few days. I know that would create a problem with her supporters. How they can look past her complete lack of intellectual integrity, I don't know. But she's going to keep riling them up to feel aggrieved when her campaign finally does end no matter how gently she is treated, so I don't see that there's anything to be gained by maintaining the fiction that she has behaved decently. She hasn't.
It seemed plausible until she skewed her understanding of history with her plea for seating theFL/MI delegates. Using such important events as civil rights in this country, the 2000 election and rcent elections in Zimbabwe. Her perspective is out of balance and perspective.
And ultimately it is not about the law with Hillary it is about her. She further damages her chances by agreeing to a set of rules and then in a memory lapse of proportional amnesia to Bosnia misspeak does a 180.
A bad idea for several reasons, many already touched on:
-She has ZERO judicial experience. Many Democratic Senators railed against Souter and Thomas for their limited federal judicial experience (most of Souter's judicial tenure was in state court). It has been many 40 or 50 years since someone without judicial experience has been confirmed to SCOTUS. The typical exception is a current law professor (a la Reagan nomination Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew).
-The Clinton baggage, both real and imagined, will be a field day for Republican Senators and Republicans generally. Does Obama really want or need this dominating the news for weeks/months?
I'm an Obama supporter, but if he can't win without giving HRC a consoloation prize of VP or SCOTUS, so be it. It is time for the party and the country to turn the page on the Clinton years.
Bored pundits finding something new to speculate about. Could happen but almost certainly won't. Pretty sure nominating people in their mid-60s for the SCOTUS isn't really in vogue these days.
Too old, unfortunately.
What has she done to demonstrate sound judicial temperament and lucid reasoning? Many of her tactics in this primary suggest she'd be a disaster, from comparing Fla/Mich to the plight in Zimbabwe to lying about sniper fire in Bosnia to lying about bringing peace to Northern Ireland to playing the gender/race/victim cards to deploying her husband to fight her battles to saying we could obliterate Iran to schmoozing the right-wing demagogues that hated her to degrading a fellow democrat to courting the racist vote in WV to being millions in campaign debt to mismanaging her entire primary strategy to hiring lobbist buffoons to serve as her key advisors.
Beside that, she's perfect!
Hilariously awful idea that only Karl Rove would love.
Crazy.
Just want the Clintons to move to some other country.
As others mentioned, she doesn't really have the background or qualifications.
When you talk about judges with little experience being "successful" on the Supreme Court, what exactly does that mean? Did they suddenly learn a lot about the law and apply it evenly, or did they do well politically?
Thomas might be considered "successful", but he doesn't even ask questions. Scalia might be considered "successful", but he can tailor any decision to his pre-determined world view.
Being successful is not necessarily equivalent to being a good judge.
What do I think? I think Hillary Clinton, the next President of the United States. That's what I think.
Four years of HRC as VP vs a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land? This is a Faustian choice. You've just handed the GOP an issue.
Four years of HRC as VP vs a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land? This is a Faustian choice. You've just handed the GOP an issue.
"She signed "with honor" not to campaign in Florida and Michigan and to unseat any delegation therefrom."
Umm....no, not exactly. She agreed not to campaign there, and said that it was clear that those primaries "wouldn't count for anything", but she never said that she *agreed* with the delegate penalties, or that she didn't think they should get full delegations, or wouldn't do anything to see that they did.
Granted....she was completely quiet on the question of whether they should be penalized until late January, after IA/NH/NV/SC had already voted. Those would be the four states that she was pandering to with her pledge not to campaign in FL/MI.
Four years of HRC as VP vs a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land? This is a Faustian choice. You've just handed the GOP an issue.
I think he should offer it to her, then change the rules! "Whoops! New rules! Remember Florida and Michigan? Welcome to Zimbabwe, Hillary."
What do I think? I think Hillary Clinton, the next President of the United States. That's what I think.
A bad idea, not because she isn't qualified, but because there are others who are far more qualified at the job whose presence we really need in SCOTUS.
Clinton's skills (and she has many) are not best put to use in a black robe. I think that she's best suited to be Senate Majority Leader, and would be most effective in promoting progressive policies in that role, even more than the Vice Presidency.
I would be OK with it in principle, if only she didn't seem to have such a shifting sense of what the rules are and when they should be respected or not.
She's not qualified. Senator Clinton she will remain, and maybe she can become the next Kennedy. She has the family name thing going for her.
I am a very strong Obama supporter and I think this is a great idea.
Why?
Because I'd love for her to give Scalia and Thomas Hell.
But I doubt she would be satisfied with this, unfortunately...
I am a very strong Obama supporter and I think this is a great idea.
Why?
Because I'd love for her to give Scalia and Thomas Hell.
But I doubt she would be satisfied with this, unfortunately...
Worst. Idea. Ever.
I detest this notion that she deserves something for coming in second and being such a sore loser about it. The longer she hangs on by this ludicrous thread she's spun, the more people like me (who used to have a powerful albeit vague fondness for the Clintons) will hope that someone swipes her Senate seat out from under her. She's so shameless. As Trey Ellis asked on HuffPo, where is Hillary's speech on race? Why has she not denounced the rubes and racists who voted for her not because they like her but because they won't vote for the "half-breed"? And how can she expect us to ever again think of her as anything but a craven, unethical, greedy politician who puts personal power above party and principles?
She's so pathetic and narcissistic, I wouldn't want her to speak at my kids' high school graduation 18 years from now, let alone be sitting on the SCOTUS.
Go away. No way.
We (speaking as a Democrat) need someone on the court with an ability to build a coalition, someone who can galvanize the votes of swing justices and forge a new majority on the bench.
The evidence is just not there that she could do that. With her wonkery and mastery of issues, she'd make a great law clerk. But that's not what's needed. We need someone with the persuasive skills to make a strong case and win over wavering votes, and from her health care debacle right up to the present, that has not been her strong suit.
Instead, Obama would be best served by taking a page from the Republican playbook, and picking someone smart, charismatic and young, like Roberts. Someone who can unite a block and be there for the next 30 years.
And let's face it - the percentage of Supremes who fall into her prime demographics, women and working class white men without a college degree, is pretty low.
Go away. No way.
Most commenters here wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than having Hillary Clinton tarred, feathered and burned at the stake for witchcraft. Suffice it to say these are not the right people to ask for a balanced opinion.
It would be extremely bad precedent, IMO.
The choice of Supreme Court Justice is a political one, but there's something to be said for keeping career politicians off the bench, particularly one so visibile.
At the end of the day, the Supreme Court has got to have credibility as the court of last resort for disputes, including many political ones. Whatever the reality behind that, the appointment of a high-profile politician to the SCOTUS destroys the ability of the court to appear above petty partisan politics. It's an important asset that shouldn't be squandered. Particularly if we'd like to avoid seeing the likes of Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee being considered for SCOTUS appointments (there being no requirement to appoint lawyers).
An idea with only one thing going for it: it provides something for blogs and pundits to talk about for a week or two. Otherwise, it's a terrible idea. At best.
Besides, after 8 years as President, Obama will still be a young man. He'll need something to do with his time. Personally, this Republican (and conservative) would like to see him follow in the footsteps of William Howard Taft. And would he, as Chief Justice, really want to have to put up with Clinton again? Surely not.
She is making the case agains that now by showcasing her profound lack of any ability to REASON!
What do I think? As an appellate attorney I think it's a perfectly awful idea. Hillary Clinton certainly has not practiced law at any time in the recent past, and by most accounts she wasn't a very good attorney when she did practice. I wouldn't want someone who's not even a good attorney to be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I have a beef with the politics of Roberts and Alito, but by all accounts they were good to excellent attorneys and/or judges before they were appointed to the Court. Indeed, I watched Roberts argue before SCOTUS twice and he was simply excellent. Based on the briefs he filed and the arguments he presented in the two cases I witnessed, I believed he deserved to be a member of the Court. His argument was thoughtful, respectful of the Court, and well-reasoned. He was truly an excellent attorney.
Appointing Hillary Clinton to the Court would in my mind be no different and no less purely political than appointing Alberto Gonzalez or, Deity forbid, Harriet Myers. Not a good idea at all, and I'd be incredibly disappointed in Obama if he were to do that.
I don't have a particular love for Hillary as a nominee because she doesn't seem to have a particular affinity for jurisprudence, and I don't see why she'd prefer that job to remaining in the Senate (also she's older than ideal for a new appointee), but while recent Supreme Court Justices have generally been academics or otherwise individuals with very strong legal backgrounds, this hasn't always been the case. Earl Warren, for example, was a politician; according to Toobin's book, Clinton was set to appoint Mario Cuomo to the spot on the court currently occupied by Breyer, but Cuomo backed out at the very last minute. Moreover, in terms of doctrinal analysis, the Supreme Court's clerks do most of the legal research and write the drafts that end up basically being the opinions.
If it would shut her up, then I'm ok with it.
Lots of arguments that Clinton isn't qualified. Is she really less qualified than Thomas?
It's Harriet Miers, Amy. Not Myers. And you surely understand that EVERY court appointment is political now. Talk with Jeffrey Toobin a bit if you doubt that, or at least read "The Nine."
Clinton wouldn't be the least qualified court nominee, not by a long shot. Obama simply needs to put her on the ticket as VP. It's the only way to bring the party together. I imagine his camp is floating the Supreme Court idea to try to avoid giving her the VP nod, but he'll be making a mistake if he doesn't.
| Most commenters here wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than having Hillary Clinton tarred, feathered and burned at the stake for witchcraft |
On the contrary: I suspect most non-Clinton supporters would be perfectly happy if she'd simply make a gracious statement to the effect that the race has been run, she did her best, but that the voters have chosen someone else.
That's not too much to ask, is it?
If Hillary is nominated for an opening in the SCOTUS, she would be required to sit through a senate hearing and be fully vetted...I don't think this is something she and Bill are comfortable with. They can skirt questions about financial relationships forged over the last eight years with skillful excuses to the media and filing extensions, but when two or three Republican senators get a chance to humiliate her (and the nominating President Obama)...they will skewer her about secrecy or perceived conflicts that must be resolved for a lifetime appointment.
Terrible idea. After her behavior in the campaign so far, to give this person a lifetime position with zero accountability, would be a huge mistake.
On top of all of that, I'd prefer the person who takes Steven's seat to be younger than Clinton.
I think it is a good idea, actually. She is smart and legendary for her ability to delve deep into issues, which would make her a good Justice. In addition, there is need to have someone on the Court who has a legislative (and executive) background. As far as age is concerned, she is only 60 and has a life expectancy of 25 years, which would put her on the bench until 2034! If I were Obama I would privately promise her the position but not say anything until a position came open on the Court.
As a second year law student I find the idea of Senator Clinton as a Supreme Court Justice appalling. The Supreme Court is the place for the best legal minds in our country. People with decades of academic, practical and judicial experience. It is laughable that this could be even considered. She hasn't practiced law in decades, and when she did practice she worked for what, 10-12 years at the Rose Law Firm? Does she have any scholarly writings or has she had any work published? She probably isn't as qualified as Harriet Miers and that turned out real well didn't it.
Hillary Clinton is maybe the most overtly outcome-oriented public official on the national scene today and is therefore distinctly tempermentally unsuited to the process-dependent impertives of the judiciary.
While on the merits I don't think she'd be a bad fit, my first impression is that we'd never hear the end of it from right-wing media, which would probably be counterproductive for those who would like to see her there in the first place. It's certainly not something you'd want Obama to float during the campaign, so while I think Justice Hillary Clinton could do a great deal of good, I think proposing her as the "next" judge is a bad idea.
Hey Obama supporters, want to lose to McCain in the fall? Keep bashing Hillary any chance you get. You don't get it do you, a lot of us are quiet intelligent and really dislike you. You won, it's a bad choice, but you've won. Clam up and play nice unless you want President McCain.
In the absence of any evidence whatsoever of her expertise in constitutional law, no.
She's also a bad executive (health care, this campaign) so no head of HHS.
Why can't she stay in the Senate? Kennedy sure affected a lot of lives positively there when he had to give up presidential ambitions. She hasn't been a bad senator--get focused on senatoring rather than setting up the right votes for a presidential run, and she could ensure a meaningful legacy--not "first female ______" but "influential senator Hillary Clinton."
Jonathan, you've admitted she's lost. When she admits it, people will stop complaining about her. In the meantime, the situation in Florida is NOT just like the situation in Zimbabwe, and we will not hush up about it.
If Clarence Thomas can get on the court, then either Bill or Hillary Clinton would make wonderful justices. But that should not be determined now nor announced now. No point to it and who knows what the future may bring.
Re MI and FL, no one's hands are clean here, including Obama (who tacitly campaigned in FL and openly urged Michiganders to vote uncommitted, and the party itself which came up with this totally stupid punishment of critical states) However, now that the race is so razor close, the calculus simply MUST change so that no one feels left out or disenfranchised. People seem way too concerned with punishment here, the DNC is obsessed with it, and that is very bothersome for the fall, and particularly for FL where the Republicans set the earlier primary date in a blatant attempt to do just what has happened to the Dems. They are laughing all the way to the polls and you all are falling for it. MI and FL should be allowed to vote over and there is plenty of time to do it. How anyone could oppose a do-over is beyond me, unless winning is the only thing. People accuse Hillary of wanting to win damn the consequences, but isnt Obama's position identical but in his favor? Failing a do-over because one side wont permit it, the delegations should be seated as they voted. I personally do not believe the Dems can win without at least Florida and probably Michigan too.
Come on people. What is the fear over a do-over? All questions could be answered and no one could be bitter. How could anyone be against it?
She's wholly unqualified and if it were ever made public, or even rumored, that Obama intended to name her to the Supreme Court, it would sink his chances in November completely.
It attenuates all the bad point of Clinton as president, with none of the good points.
People hate the feeling of being preached to annd lectured by Hillary Clinton. Now, guess what? She'll be in a position to lecture to us for the rest of her career! (Which, if how long she's sticking with the campaign is any indiciation, would be the rest of her life).
Plus, it wouldn't be historic, since we've already has two woman Supreme Court Justices.
Lots of downside, no upside.
The job requires integrity beyond reproach and a fundamental sense of fairness. She fails both tests.
Hillary is less qualified to be on the SCOTUS than Harriet Miers was.
She simply does not have the legal credentials.
This idea is very offensive to me. Putting her in the Supreme Court would skip over dozens of far better qualified jurists, because of what....? Because people want to give her a consolation prize? Is that what the Supreme Court has been reduced to?
Considering that the majority of Americans don't think she is honest and trustworthy, I think the Supreme Court is the LAST place she should go.
The bloggers here as usual are the third party crazies and hillary haters.
It is stupid to suggest someone who is qualified to be the president (who picks supreme court justices) is not qualified to be a supreme court justice. That is just your non-sensical hate talking. it must be fun to be so contrary all the time, to be so daringly principled in your stances as to make you totally non principled, and to find new excuses to hate everyday.
are you the same hillary haters and third party crazies that kept saying theat they agreed with wright for a month before the press-club reveal?
that dean was the movement for change until the scream?
third party crazies.
Sort of like what Lincoln did to get Salmon Chase out of the picture. Confirmation hearings would be interesting.
She flunked the D.C. bar exam when she got out of law school. Running to Bill in Arkansas gave her cover.
Man, it's weird for me to be kind of agreeing with Tim K and Michael C.
Fellow Obama supporters, we have won.
There is no need for us to be sore winners or to humiliate her.
Even if you hate Hillary, you should follow Obama's lead in starting to heal the wounds because a united party is in Obama's best interest.
Is her MI/FL talk kind of annoying? Sure. But, c'mon, she is simply negotiating a bit right now. Cut her a little slack. It's not going to effect the outcome. Don't be so paranoid.
She has stopped attacking Obama and we should stop attacking her.
"It is stupid to suggest someone who is qualified to be the president (who picks supreme court justices) is not qualified to be a supreme court justice."
This is crazy.
Is she qualified to be a surgeon?
Is she qualified to be a mechanic?
Is she qualified to teach chemistry?
She is simply not qualified to be on the US Supreme Court.
Her law career was quite short and not particularly distinguished. She has done ZERO legal scholarship. She's never been a judge.
Sorry, the qualifications to be president and the qualifications to be on the SCOTUS are NOT the same.
It's sad to see the comments saying, essentially, "Well, she's more qualified than Thomas." Now there's a low hurdle!
Why argue that the fact that someone who is not qualified is already on the Court justifies putting a second unqualified person onto the Court? Do you really have so little in the way of good arguments that you have to resort to that?
Hillary Clinton has a demonstrably LESS impressive legal resume than Harriet Miers.
Miers:
was a law clerk to the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
was head of the Texas State bar
was a partner at Locke, Liddell & Sapp for 30 years
was White House counsel
It goes against the way Supreme Court Justices have been selected in the last 50 years. Nowadays, justices have spent at least a decade (usually longer) on the bench and have frequently held professorships. The law is their life's work. Although she was a practicing lawyer quite a while ago, HRC has been in the political sphere for a long time now. Appointing HRC would be like the old days, like when William Howard Taft was appointed after his presidential term ended. It's just a little weird in today's context.
Also, the right would have a heyday with the fact that she failed the DC bar exam when she first took it (they already do), and that's frankly an unusual thing to see in a supreme court justice.
Because of her stature it would make the most sense to appoint her as Chief Justice, and I think that job is taken for the next 30 years or so. But ultimately, I just don't think HRC and the court are a good fit. She's a very effective and powerful politician, and seems to fit best exactly where she is.
All you HRC for SCOTUS fans: name the last supreme court justice who had NO judicial experience? As far as I can tell, it was Earl Warren (marin county prosecutor, state attorney general and california governor, but never a judge), appointed by Eisenhower as a reward for not running against Eisenhower/Nixon in California.
As others noted, some law professors have also been nominated. Clinton is neither a judge or a law professor. No more blackmail--he won, you lost. No VP, No SCOTUS. Time to suck it up and make a gracious farewell and return to the Senate.
Stupid idea advanced by Obamabots to sweep her under the rug. He is trying to divert attention from the fact that Hillary does substantially better he does in key swing states in the general election. In polls out this week, she wins in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Missouri, Arkansas against McCain, he loses. She also does better than Obama against McCain in several other states, including Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, Kansas.... The suggestion that he would nominate her for SCOTUS is fraught with problems--not the least of which is that HE WILL NEVER BE POTUS!!
Stupid idea advanced by Obamabots to sweep her under the rug. He is trying to divert attention from the fact that Hillary does substantially better he does in key swing states in the general election. In polls out this week, she wins in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Missouri, Arkansas against McCain, he loses. She also does better than Obama against McCain in several other states, including Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, Kansas.... The suggestion that he would nominate her for SCOTUS is fraught with problems--not the least of which is that HE WILL NEVER BE POTUS!!
Before this primary I didn't know what to think about Senator Clinton. However, based on what I have seen of how she does things my response to this can be summed up in two words.
Hell No.
I honestly don't want to see her face anymore, and I never want to see her in a position of real power anymore.
She is a proven liar. This is not the sort of person you should even consider jokingly for a supreme court nomination.
I have donated to both the DCCC and Senator Obama's campaign, but if he were to decide to put her up as one of his potential nominations to supreme court I would be forced to vote for Senator McCain. I am serious. She scares the hell out of me, a new feeling that I did not have until I saw her in action. I don't want to see her in any position of power, ever again. New York can do what it wants with her, but keep her out of the Executive and Judicial branches please.
This issue is actually the first one which I have seen which would cause me to unequivocally vote AGAINST Senator Obama.
Of course, he will still win my state anyways, (IL) and I really do like him thus far. I don't see him actually doing this sort of thing either. BUT... If he did this it would tell me that he is not what I think he is.
Worst. Idea. Ever.
Sure, why not? She is as qualified as anyone else.
Sigh, do y'all really not get it. Despite your assertions that Hillary lost this was insanely close, and in some counts she won the popular vote (or will win). The fact is if there hadn't been caucuses she would have won even bigger because of their vote suppressing nature. However, before you start whining or making bad arguments or saying that rules or rules, it doesn't matter. Pretty much half of the part loves Clinton and we're not dumber, more immoral or wrong for it. You need to compromise and bring the party back together because you'll LOSE without half the party. Don't give me reasons we should still support Obama, instead it's time for y'all to suck it up and deal with fact that the Obama wing is not enough without compromising with the Clinton wing of the part (and part of that is Clinton herself, not her gender or demographic, but her person).
1. She's too old. I want our side to have a really bright person in her/his 40s or early 50s.
2. She'd give a recognizable face to GOP hype about judicial activism and make it easier to mobilize against other Dem judicial nominations.
3. After the ethically challenged campaign she's run, I think Obama should look elsewhere to fill the nation's highest court.
I think the best way for the dem presidential race to end is to have NY governor and Hillary trade places.
| 
Better that than Vice President.
Posted by Hatch | May 22, 2008 2:43 PM