I nominate Hillary Clinton

[angrychair]

For the the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Why?

*A life-long liberal that would be a strong legal ally for women's rights and healthcare as well as minority rights and I do think, uniquely in this position, would readily overturn Citizens United. Free from the influence of money and politics, she will be in a much better ally to many future Democratic administrations for decades.

*republicans can support it as it, in effect, removes her from the policy and politics of Washington. She will never be president or any other office holder. She may well have major impact on most challenges but would be a better compromise than the alternative for them.

*No more Senate hearings, investigations and ridiculous talking points from teapublican nutjobs.

[cali]

1. Ridiculous. Fantasy land.

[angrychair]

4. I respect your opinion

Why would you say that? My logic is sound.

[JonLeibowitz]

2. Due to her age it would be a error in long term strategy.

To say nothing of her qualifications or jurisprudence.

[mgmaggiemg]

6. agree

[stonecutter357]

3. Do you even Berniebro!

[angrychair]

7. Since i have no idea

What you mean I don't care.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. No. Not for president. Not for the Supreme Court.

[senz]

8. Wall Street would applaud your suggestion.

[angrychair]

10. As a politician

But free of SuperPACs and paid speeches and politics needed to campaign for office, I think we would see a different person.

It's about the money and the influence it buys. That would no longer be a factor.

[Paka]

18. Are you kidding?

HRC will always be looking to cash in somewhere. Being on the SC won't change that any. It will just be a lot more secretive.

[demwing]

9. Holy shit, I just found out about Scalia.

No wonder there are threads about Hillary and the SCOTUS. I take back what I wrote previously.

Hillary would make an acceptable replacement to that bastard, god rest his soul.

Republicans would approve her because they wouldn't have to run against her, Bernie gets the nomination, and we stop tearing the party apart.

[Cheese Sandwich]

11. She won't respect our right to be free from mass surveillance on phone calls and emails.

[bowens43]

12. she is even less qualified for the supreme court then she is for the presidency

hillary is not now nor has she ever been a liberal. she needs to quietly fade from public life

[Karma13612]

13. I agree

but,

if she wants to keep busy, then they have a whole big organization called the Clinton Global Initiative that she could be involved in.

I still say she is way too globally oriented to care enuf for just the US.

We need a candidate who puts the US first.

Again, I agree with your comment, she is not good for either the SC or the WH.

[angrychair]

14. To be supremely specific

There are no Constitutional qualifications for a Supreme Court justice no requirements exist. They don't have to be a judge. They don't even have to be a lawyer.
That being said,even I personally don't trust her as a politician. I believe that money and politics have had a huge corrupting influence on her as her career in politics has progressed. She is better than some, worse than others.
That being said, free of those influences, I think she would be an excellent justice.

[olddots]

15. are there enough kickbacks in the job ?

[ebayfool]

16. Dayum it!

Tuna sammich out my nose! When am I gonna learn?! Don't eat or drink on DU!

Good one olddots

[Paka]

17. I would prefer to nominate her

as stay-at-home grandmother of the year. Out and away from the public eye.

[RiverLover]

20. +1

Another corporatist on the SC? Shudder. Roberts has done enough damage. He doesn't need any more help.

I'm sure Charlotte would love to spend less time with her Nanny and more time with her Nana, anyways.

[AlbertCat]

19. Yeah...but...

...would Thomas do what she told him to do?