Will Dubya appoint Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court?

[saltpoint]

James Ridgeway, a very provocative political analyst, reports in the current on-line VILLAGE VOICE (link below) that a scenario is being advanced by Novak and perhaps others that would dramatically impact the course of U.S. politics in 2008.

According to this scenario:

Bush will make either Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia Chief Justice after Rehnquist's resignation for health reasons, freeing one seat on the Court.

Because right-wing GOP nuts fear Hillary Clinton, Bush would appoint Bill Clinton to that Court vacancy.

Frist freaks in the Senate and holds up Bill's nomination until Reid caves and grants the GOP all the judicial appointments the White House has ever sent down.

The Rovian take is that voters then would never let Hillary near the nomination or the White House with her husband on the Supreme Court, as it would violate the sense that one family is high-placed in two branches of government simultaneously.

In the bargain, the GOP cancels out Senator Clinton's shot at power AND gets all the nutcase judges it wants, with Thomas or Scalia leading the big parade.

Link is below, with three brief excerpt paragraphs:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0514,mondo,62701,6.html

Excerpts:

Bush names either Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia to be chief justice. That leaves one vacancy on the court. Then he appoints Bill Clinton to the court. Oh my God!

The thought of adulterer Clinton on the court (think Monica as clerk) sends right-wingers up the wall. But wait a minute. Think it through: Next, Bill Frist—Senate majority leader, Terri Schiavo defender, and himself a presidential hopeful—immediately moves to hold up Bill's nomination. Next, Harry Reid, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, cuts a deal to free the conservative judicial nominations now backed up in Congress in return for letting Clinton on the court.

Once on the court, Clinton is out of the picture when it comes to campaigning for Hillary or anyone else in 2008. What to do about Hillary? Americans may differ on whether she should be president, but almost everyone will agree that the country could not stand to have two Clintons dominating two branches of government.

======
It sounds a bit far-flung to me, but then I'm not inside the Beltway.

Any thoughts, DUers?

[Dookus]

1. I think it's good fantasy fiction

[saltpoint]

4. Hi, Dookus. It hit me that way too, and I'm just wondering --

-- if I'm being fair or not.

If it's a trial balloon, it's one of the strangest I've read in a while.

Anyway, nice to see you up late on DU.

[Dookus]

5. Thanks...

you too.

I just can't believe it would ever happen.

[Fridays Child]

2. No way. Too many "ifs" and one deadly given, namely...

...the wrath that such a nomination would incur among the Republicans' Clinton-hating base.

[saltpoint]

6. Probably it would enrage them, yes, but Ridgeway --

-- says that the trade-off would put the Right in a better position if it happened. They get Scalia or Thomas to head the Court, and all the judges they want. Plus Hillary is likely thwarted.

It's provocative, if not terribly convincing, isn't it?

[Demit]

3. Except he's not eligible till 2009--

Clinton's law license in Arkansas is suspended until 2006. Shortly after his suspension, he resigned his bar admission to the U.S. Supreme Court. He can't apply for readmission to the SCOTUS bar until at least 2009.

On edit: I just read that you don't have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court! I didn't know that.

[saltpoint]

7. I wondered about the disbarment (is that the right word?) --

-- after the Monica Lewinsky/Impeachment period.

Are there presidential overrides in place that would 1) pardon a past president to clear him for future service or 2) exceptions made to the timetable of regular reapplication?

If there were either of those in place, I wonder if it could still happen legally.

(I'm still not convinced it will happen at all, but I'm having fun thrashing it around my brain!)

[Fridays Child]

11. I don't think a pardon would have any effect on disbarment.

Isn't that an action taken by the bar association in the state where the attorney is licensed?

[saltpoint]

19. Good question. I don't know. Maybe some of our DU --

-- attorneys can come to the rescue here.

[Dookus]

26. actually

it means he can't argue before the court. But I don't think it prevents him from serving on the court.

The constitution alone defines this, and there's nothing that says Bill Clinton, or you or I, couldn't be appointed. Technically, one doesn't even have to be a lawyer to be a supreme court justice.

[Totally Committed]

32. I, too, wonder about the disbarment...

Can one he be made a justice while he remains disbarred? I seem to remember that being brought up when he was disbarred, and I seem to remember that as long as his disbarment stands, he cannot be appointed to any court, let alone, the Supreme Court.

But, I could be wrong or misremembering too...

TC

[XOKCowboy]

8. No Way...

It'll never happen. The Repugs hate Clinton, either one of them. I think it's just a fantasy. Would I like to see it happen? Under the scenario you describe, no. I'd rather the Democrats unite and do everything possible to block the conservative nominations without any distractions and deal cutting.

[saltpoint]

10. I'd love to see zero tolerance for nutcase judges. We agree.

I might take it a step or two further and have any far-right insane fascist judge Dubya sends up to the Hill flown one-by-one over the Himalyas and booted out the plane door.

I understand that this would be considered a strident recommendation.

But wow does it ever have appeal.

[amjucsc]

9. The right would go nuts

I can't believe W would be crazy enough to try it in a million years. The head of every far right wing nutcase would explode. It might destroy the GOP. Besides why would W risk having one of his one or two appointments turning into a guaranteed liberal vote.

[saltpoint]

12. Ridgeway acknowledges that the Right would freak.

But he posits that their haul in the bargain is far greater than Bill Clinton's lone "liberal" vote.

I'm not endorsing the scenario, just bringing it over to DU for discussion.

It's a provocative set of circumstances.

[amjucsc]

18. But that's a damn important vote...

Replacing Rhenquist, Kennedy or O'Connor with a Clinton would turn the current moderate-right court into a truly liberal one. That'd be a hell of a risk for W to take. (Though I could imagine a liberal court as an electoral blessing to the Republicans.)

Actually it's a scenario I'd happily endorse. Which is probably why it's not going to happen.

[XOKCowboy]

21. Now you've got a point...

I forgot that right now it is the only Supreme Court opening available. That's another reason it'll never happen. It would be nice to have the SCOTUS leaning left again though.

[punpirate]

13. I think Ridgeway might just be having some fun...

... for a number of reasons.

Hillary Clinton doesn't have a chance in 2008 (first, because she is moving ever rightward to position herself for a run--a classic Democratic mistake, and second, she's dead in the water once the right-wing noise machine gets cranked up, and third, by 2008, the electorate is going to be thoroughly fed up with dynastic presidential politics).

The business about the re-nominated appeals court justices will likely be resolved before Rehnquist steps down.

Clinton would shift the balance of the court in ways that would make conservatives go apeshit. Beyond that, Bill Clinton is smart enough to realize that it would be a cynical ploy, and that a Republican Congress would immediately start plotting his impeachment in much the same way as the long-term Gerald Ford-led campaign to impeach William O. Douglas.

George W. Bush also despises Clinton. And it would have to be Bush that nominated him. I don't think he could bring himself to do it--even for nefarious purposes.

Last, a lot can happen between now and 2008. The putative front-runners now may be dog-shit on the sidewalk by 2007.

[saltpoint]

15. Hi, punpirate. Senator Clinton's chances for the --

-- nomination are slim, at least from my angle.

I agree with most of your points against her being nominated/elected and would throw in the problem she may have in a place like Iowa. Although she has an Illinois upbringing, I just don't think that at this point in her life she can talk turkey with Iowa pig farmers. I believe she will place no better than third and probably fourth in the Iowa Caucuses, behind Bayh, Feingold, and Edwards (not necessarily in that order).

She could surprise me, yes. But I just feel her chances are slim.

[punpirate]

22. If she makes it clear that she's running...

... her Illinois background would likely be used against her--and not just in Iowa--since much of that is comprised of her activities in the Young Republicans. :)

[amjucsc]

14. Further thoughts...

Actually there's nothing (so far as I know) to stop Bill from being a Justice, as there are no legal requirements for being on the Court in the Constitution.

Also I suspect that the right might actually like to see Hillary run. She's greatly hated on the right, and I'm not entirely confident that she'd be able to win in a general election.

[saltpoint]

16. On Hillary and the Right. There's that charge she made --

-- when her husband was in the White House about the "vast Right-Wing conspiracy," which some folks dismissed as whiney paranoia.

But lately the fake journalists peppered all around, the disinformation, the general subversive nature of the GOP and the far Right all tend to support her theory.

A friend of mine in St. Petersburg says that Hillary Clinton will not be elected because "she doesn't smile enough."

[amjucsc]

20. I do wonder what will happen...

When one of the major parties runs someone who isn't a white male. Especially if it's Rice-- the racist/sexist vote would be in a real bind there.

Personally though, I think our next candidate is going to have to reach out to right wing areas somehow. We can simply replay the last election and hope for better results, but the odds would be sorely against our winning. The next successful Dem will need to make inroads in the South and Southeast, and I don't think Hillary will be up to the challenge.

[saltpoint]

25. It might be really good if both major parties ran candidates --

-- who were not the traditional white males.

But can I have Boxer instead of Clinton and Snowe instead of Rice, if it's women who are to be nominated.

Senator Clinton is just not inspiring to me, where Boxer's overall performance feels like the grassroots, people-focused Democratic Party of old.

As for the Republicans, Rice's name has been tossed around, but her deceit on Iraq just doesn't cut it.

[amjucsc]

34. I'd prefer Snow as well...

At least as a President, should a Republican one be inevitable. I doubt that Condi'd really do all that well a Presidential candidate, but a moderate female Republican Senator could be quite formidable. I doubt Boxer'd have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a national election (and as a Californian it pain me say it.)

[ZootSuitGringo]

17. Will Clinton like having

Shit on his lips?

Let's hope not!

[VOX]

23. Interesting idea, but it won't happen. n/t

[housewolf]

24. This could create some of the highest-drama political theater

we've seen yet. EVERYBODY would be mad at everybody else, it would turn into a real free-for-all. I think this is someone's pipe dream.

[saltpoint]

42. I hope I can be forgiven for being drawn to the sheer --

-- audacity of Ridgeway's article.

And I think you are right about the political theater part. Definitely.

[patricia92243]

27. Wonder if this is why Clinton has been :kissing up: to Bush lately?

[saltpoint]

36. Hi, patricia92243. Your suggestion stings a bit for me --

-- because another very astute DUer suggested it a short while back and I just couldn't get my head around it.

You re-introduce it here against the context of the above scenario and it makes me wish I'd been more alert before.

Instinctually I still don't believe it will happen, but the Bill-Dubya coziness lately has been odd.

[patricia92243]

45. Sorry - didn't mean to hurt anybodies feelings.

[saltpoint]

48. I was complimenting you. I was just saying that you --

-- and at least one other DUer got there before I did.

That's one reason I really like DU -- I benefit from others' perspective, info, and insights.

And many DUers -- you in this case -- can 'sting' me into awareness of things I've passed over or just missed entirely.

Ya done a good thing.

[patricia92243]

52. Oh, O.K. then -

:) :) :)

Thanks for posting me back.

[baldguy]

28. It would be the smart thing to do.

Which means "no".

[saltpoint]

37. You sum up the political climate concisely.

(Also I love your signature quotation!)

[Charon]

29. Appointing Clinton

When Hell Freezes Over.

[saltpoint]

38. Well, Jeb Bartlett did something like this on WEST WING.

The news out of that fictional NBC White House isn't any less accurate than news from Scotty's mouth at press briefings.

No, you're right -- it is a long shot.

[Yupster]

30. Not Bush

Maybe another president, but not Bush.

Nuances and schemes like this is not in Bush's history. He has no such subtlety. He'll pick the guy he wants and try to ram it through regardless of how round the peg or square the hole.

Also, anyone who follows Bush's career knows he knows who his base supporters are and he doesn't anger them on purpose.

Nope - just doesn't sound like Bush.

[saltpoint]

39. I agree that it doesn't sound like Dubya.

If certain others are the puppetteers, though, the motivation for "stopping Hillary's path to power" would be more clear.

I love reading fiction and maybe that's why this plot has appeal. I don't believe it anymore than I think Bigfoot lurks in the nearby woods. But god it's interesting to kick around.

[Catherine Vincent]

31. No way.

If he did that, his base would want to assasinate him for doing that. Please.

[saltpoint]

40. Well, assassination is still pretty illegal --

-- at least in the blue states. We could look up the stats.

Of course they'd be angered. Furious. But the scenario accounts for that and goes forward into the judicial apointment blockage and halting Hillary's chances for the White House.

That's the tripswitch right there. Not the isolated idea of Bush appointing Clinton.

[kentuck]

33. (Beavis) Huh....Huh....Huh...

You're kidding. Right?

[saltpoint]

41. You mean is Novak kidding? I have no idea. Ridgeway's --

-- article is on the link -- go ahead and see what you think.

He's no fool, James Ridgeway. And Novak, although I generally hate his positions and attitude, is shrewd.

[WI_DEM]

35. not in a million years

[quaoar]

43. Here's another scenario

The College of Cardinals names Ariel Sharon to be the next pope.....

[saltpoint]

49. That's a scenario that's bound to grab a headline or two...

[XemaSab]

44. Not likely

n/t

[osaMABUSh]

46. Crazy stuff. Is Clinton setting Bush up?

You notice the Big Dog is all over the news and spending a lot of time in the limelight with the Bushies?

So what's up? Clinton is smarter than all the Bushies put together (Poppy, Junior, Jebby, etal) so what is the final outcome?

[saltpoint]

50. Yes. There is a lot of schmoozin' goin' on.

I'm thinking there's something afoot but can't imagine what it is.

I think you're right, too, about Clinton's being smarter than all the Bushfolks put together.

[Orangepeel]

47. There was a thread on DU today about a woman being named Pope...

that has a better chance of happening than this crazy scenario. What is this author smokin'?

[saltpoint]

51. Ridgeway, in his VV piece, cites Robert Novak --

-- the very conservative columnist, Bush hack, and Crossfire celeb.

You have absolutely ruined my night with the image of Bob Novak toking up.