What if Obama nominated Hillary for the Supreme Court?

[thesquanderer]

The Republicans might actually confirm her, so as not to run against her.

I don't think she'd want it, though. She'd probably have to give up the $225k speaking fees, not just for 8 years, but for the rest of her life. Supreme Court judges have a harder time cashing in.

ETA: Plus, if Super Tuesday goes badly for her, a Supreme Court nomination (whether she gets confirmed or not) could give her a graceful way out of the race!

[DURHAM D]

1. No.

jrtr - The Supremes make money from speeches.

[napi21]

2. I don't think HE WOULD, nor do I think she'd want the job.

THAT would sure be looked at like throwing the nomination on his side. But on Hillary's side, I think she wants to be President a lot more than a justice.

[840high]

3. No. NO.

[Lil Missy]

4. He wouldn't even consider it. n/t

[yourpaljoey]

5. No thanks, do not want.

She needs to run far far away, she is a national disgrace.

[NanceGreggs]

6. I get the general impression ...

... that Hill has a different position in mind.

And BTW, she'll be giving up those speaking fees when she's the POTUS, so that consideration is not exactly part of the equation.

[thesquanderer]

7. re: "BTW, she'll be giving up those speaking fees when she's the POTUS"

Yes, but as I said, only for 8 years (max).

[NanceGreggs]

9. She doesn't exactly need the money, does she?

And after her eight years in office, she will undoubtedly write another book (or more) that publishers will pay big bucks for, and from which she will earn royalties without having to leave the comforts of home.

The meme that HRC is so enamoured of earning speaking fees is rather silly, when you consider that she can make more from one or two speaking engagements than she will earn per annum as POTUS.

That fact makes it pretty clear that money isn't the motivation here, doesn't it?

[thesquanderer]

10. Yes. Power first, money second.

"Not needing the money" hasn't stopped the Clintons before.

[NanceGreggs]

11. Okay, what ev.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Yeah, no. Just no.

She was given the SOS job to get her out of the way because she was a pain in the ass (refusing to concede the primary and threatening to take it to the convention). She should not be given an appointment to the USSC just to get her out of the way. She will have to lose fair and square just like she did last time and just retire from politics.

[NanceGreggs]

13. She was given the SOS job ...

... to get her out of the way?

Why would that appointment have been necessary to "get her out of the way"? What could she have done to be "in the way" after losing in 2008?

Do you really believe that Obama would have appointed HRC as SoS - a very high profile position - to get her "out of the way"? Wouldn't that extremely important and influential position be the exact opposite of getting someone "out of the way"?

Exactly WHAT are you on about?

[FlatBaroque]

12. Due to her outstanding history of good judgment?!?