General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIMO, Hillary is heading for the Supreme Court rather than running in 2016.
What do you think?
Flashmann
(2,140 posts)Being in any position from which she can wreak havoc and damage on the wrongwing.......
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)provided she can get Senate approval.
Skraxx
(2,981 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)We need liberal justices that can serve for 20 to 30 years. No one over the age of 60, preferably 50 should even be considered.
I would rather she be president.
avebury
(10,952 posts)could serve for a really long time. Hillary would be a great justice but I wouldn't want the risk of having the slot open up in the not all too distant future and possibly ending up with a conservative justice.
BeyondGeography
(39,377 posts)50 or so is what you want for the Court. Remember who we're playing against.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I am not an ageist on anything except the Supreme Court because it is such a vital and important role. With her recent medical problems, and the fact she's 65 (and who knows how old when there is a vacancy), it's far too risky to put her on the court.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)be it the SCOTUS, or if there's no opening in 4 years, running for POTUS.
Bucky
(54,041 posts)Ginsberg at 60 and Alito at 55 were already pushing the envelope. I expect most future nominees will be 45-55 for the rest of my lifetime, unless they rewrite the tenure laws (which'd take a constitutional amendment, btw) to maybe an 18 year term (that's probably about average anyway). Clarence Thomas was 41 or 42 when appointed. Sadly, you can't fire a judge for mediocrity.
ananda
(28,874 posts)..
samsingh
(17,600 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Her service to the US is broad, has a great understanding of the law and Constitution.
Faygo Kid
(21,478 posts)Sorry, but the reality is no one over 55 is ever going to be named to the court again. Plus, that's not where she wants to be, I think.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)will resign and Hillary will be appointed. We should know by March.
Faygo Kid
(21,478 posts)I'll have whatever you're smoking/drinking, however.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)Please explain
CK_John
(10,005 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)if it's true, some evidence from you is in order.
otherwise, don't tempt me with the laundry list of lulz.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Especially if he can really get his base out for her. But first, there would have to be no bruising fight for the nomination between her and Biden. I would expect that Barack Obama would really be put on the spot if both of them asked for his support in the primaries. If he did the favor for Joe, even if she won, she'd still be resentful towards him, no matter how hard he campaigned for her in the general election.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)He can run to sort of block/flank her, not to tear her down, but to stop any possible other challenges, then be the VP
if it's done for the continuation of President Obama's two terms, it could work, and be historic on both sides.
I could see Joe being okay with this. Longest running VP would be amazing.
I don't see the Vice President getting ahead of Hillary in the polls, but working together,
they could basically make it a no challenge primary imho
President Obama would fully back Hillary if she were the nominee, even if he stayed neutral during the primary, and the only reason she didn't win in 2008 was his voters, who would vote for her now(like myself, I was NOT a big supporter of her back then, now I am).
And we need Bill Clinton to avidly support too, his support helped alot.
(if only Gore had not shunned him, made no sense in retrospect for him to do that.)
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Being as Joe took a grab at the brass ring both in 1988 and 2008, and having served two full terms as VP, he's got to think that for 2016, it's now or never. Hillary at least has a shot at it in 2020 if the terrain looks better for Repukes in 2016, but Joe would be nearly 78 on Election Day, 2020, while she would only have just turned 73.
Yes, both of those ages look pretty damned old to a lot of people here, but they aren't the same thing they were when your grandparents died in their seventies.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and President Obama foreshadowed that in his inauguration speech, talking about equal rights for women.
There is a reason there are 1000s and 1000s of people who could have been president
and only 44(actually 43 as one is counted twice) have actually been President.
Most people (even if they are great and talented and really nice guys), don't become President.
And no, I don't wish Jeb Bush to become President with Chris Christie as VP.
It takes a Clinton to defeat a Bush.
Look how badly Bush defeated the pair from Mass, 41 making the phrase "dukakissed" into a word, and 43 defeating John Kerry.
but look how Bill Clinton defeated 41.
and Hillary45 will defeat Jeb Bush.
Again, it takes a Clinton to beat a Bush.
(and Jeb was too chicken to run against President Obama, so it goes without saying, President Obama easily would have beaten Jeb
but Jeb would most likely beat any candidate other than Hillary45, it is sad to say.
No matter the truth about 41, look at all the beloved stories that came out when 41 looked to be near the end after Thanksgiving through Christmas. For whatever reason, people all across the country seem to admire him (not W), but Jeb is not W and unfortunately, other candidates could easily lose to Jeb in 2016. But not Hillary45.
The Bush spell don't work against the Clinton's.
It takes a Clinton to defeat a Bush.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)What I found odd was thinking that Joe Biden would be content to be VP for yet another four years. He's earned his shot at trying to grab that ring, too, and this is indeed his last possible grab. I can see him putting Hillary on the ticket, and promising to serve only one term if elected, to deal with the age thing.
That would be true statesmanship.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)In addition to all the reasons listed above, she knows she could win a nomination and the Presidency far easier than the time she'd have in the Senate getting confirmed. She's no blank slate.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)She has said so fairly recently...I don't think it's rough and tumble enough for her... Besides, I doubt she would be able to tolerate Thomas and Scalia.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)I don't think she's really interested, although I'm sure she'd be a diligent and fair justice if she were appointed.
AndyA
(16,993 posts)I can easily see her as President or s Supreme Court Justice.
After her testimony on Benghazi this week, I'm more impressed with her than ever. She handles herself very well, regardless of the situation. She's incredibly smart and Bill Clinton would make a great First Gentleman!
Talk about setting new precedents...the first female President, the first First Gentleman, who is also a former President himself...it will be a very long list of new precedents.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)onenote
(42,747 posts)Among other reasons, HRC is 65, which makes her older than Roberts, Alito and Thomas. Its just not a smart move. Keep in mind that the number of justices appointed to the court at that age or older probably can be counted on one hand. Since 1930 (over 80 years), I think only two justices were 65 or older when appointed.
As always, your predictions are entertaining, albeit off-base.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)chooses to do is HER decision and is fine with me. CHOICE!!!
Qutzupalotl
(14,322 posts)She'll stay there for life, taunting conservatives, rather than disappearing after one or two presidential terms.
Of course, she pissed off a bunch of senators this week who will need to approve her.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And IMO too corporate.
sabbat hunter
(6,834 posts)for the position.
She hasn't practiced law in years. Her area of law was not constitutional law.
She is a wonderful person, has made a great SoS, but I do not see her as a member of the SCOTUS.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)TeamPooka
(24,248 posts)Madame Secretary has a greater destiny ahead of her right now IMHO.
lastlib
(23,271 posts)She would never be confirmed.
1) She has never shown interest in that
2) No President would nominate someone over 65. Look at the ages of Bush's and Obama's picks. They get lifetime appointments and each side wants people who will be there a long time.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)(Anyone remember this video?)
Sigh... it's completely tongue in cheek, he said before the jury hide.
no_hypocrisy
(46,160 posts)Wish it weren't so.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)why would Obama want to nominate her to the court when he could instead nominate a justice who can leave a representation of his interests in the courtroom for the next 40 years?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)and I don't think any president would take the political hit for nominating her.
EastKYLiberal
(429 posts)tblue37
(65,483 posts)lifetime appointment to protectthe Democratic president's effect on future court decisions. If a USSC justice dies or retires during a Republican presidency, we will get a court packed with RWers who can shape public life for a generation--like Roberts probably will.
I like HC and think she'd be a great USSC justice, but she's too old. We'd lose that seat again too soon.
MzShellG
(1,047 posts)I'm still holding out for Michelle Obama to be appointed to the SCOTUS.