Hillary Clinton for the Supreme Court?

[Cali_Democrat]

What do you guys think?

[Tansy_Gold]

1. LOL -- I've been saying it since 2000!

[lisa58]

2. Yes!

[beaglelover]

3. That would be great! (nt)

[Webster Green]

4. Oh man, The wingnuts would really come unhinged.

:rofl: :rofl:

[cutlassmama]

6. More reason for her to go for it

[maxsolomon]

5. i tihnk she is more useful where she is now.

and i don't think 2016 is out of the question given that 70 for women isn't the same as 70 for john mccain.

[mr715]

7. I'd kill for it.

Even if it is a placeholder.

I think it will be a politically beneficial appointment (she has a 60%+ approval rating) and I think her judicial decisions on the court would be far more liberal than her decisions on legislative matters, but we do have to contend with the fact that shes 61 and... well awesome.

[Perky]

8. It would be a very interesting pick

and given the strong support she got from the GOP on her current job it is difficult to see them putting up a big fillibuster,



I also think picking a woman is the right thing to do both politically and for court balance.

[karynnj]

39. Might not be the same thing

SoS reports to the President and the idea is that he gets to pick his team unless there are major problems. In Clinton's case on foreign policy, she was a very centrist Democrat. I am sure that Republicans were likely happy that Obama picked someone for this who was to the right of himself. (I assume the Republicans likely greatly preferred her to Kerry, who is more liberal - though they likely would have confirmed him easily as well - especially as Lugar has always thought well of him.)

The Supreme Court is not an administration position - so they would use a different standard.

[AuntPatsy]

9. Definately, she could do more good in such a position...

[hughee99]

10. No thank you.

Yes, I know Hillary is an accomplished lawyer, but I'd prefer to see someone who spent the last 20 years in the practice of law rather than politics. The court has become too political already, putting high profile politicians there will only make things worse. I like Hillary, but not for the USSC.

[monmouth]

11. No, no and absolutely no. Thank you...n/t

[bigdarryl]

12. NO she's to old 62 going on the Court is not a good idea

we need some young people on that court who will be there for at least 30 years

[krawhitham]

16. +1

[DJ13]

13. If she were the most liberal among Obama's choices, sure

But I wouldnt nominate her just to elevate her stature.

Besides, we really need a younger nominee as theres no guarantee that she would last long enough to have another Democrat as President (after 2016).

[GodlessBiker]

14. A definite yes. Would she want the position?

[lunatica]

15. I'd be so happy I would run in circles waving my arms in pure joy

[jefferson_dem]

21. I would be thrilled to no end. And my cat...

would be doing this ... if I had a cat.

[lunatica]

38. Yup! That's definitely the happy dance!

[sunnybrook]

65. You need to get a cat!

That's great! Haven't seen my "Democats" this happy for a long time!

[dave29]

17. duh.

:)

[LiberalFighter]

18. I would support any nominee that could cause Scalia to have a heart attack.

Need I say more?

In addition, maybe she would cause Cheney to have the right kind of heart attack.

[cascadiance]

48. Or Bobby Knight so they would have a "hunting accident"...

Cheney obviously didn't work before when he hunted with Scalia before in terms of having that sort of thing happen, and would be too dangerous a pick anyway.

On the serious side, I still say "ERWIN CHEMERINSKY FOR SCOTUS!!!"

[tritsofme]

19. Too old.

I say that as someone who was proudly a strident supporter of her presidential bid.

[jefferson_dem]

20. I've been lobbying for that since Sotomayor.

Would love to see it but doubt it would happen.

[Little Star]

22. We should only be so lucky!!

[BlooInBloo]

23. Works for me.

[damntexdem]

24. Sure.

Or alternately, she's elected prez in 2016 and names Barack to the SCOTUS.

[onenote]

25. it wouldn't mind but I have a feeling it would trigger a huge amount

of donations to the repubs by their hilary hating base.

[Metric System]

26. Not this again! Seriously, why does this keep coming up?

[Cali_Democrat]

31. Because Justice Stevens is retiring. n/t

[Lyric]

27. I'm all for it.

I think she'd be fantastic there. Sure, she's 62--but women live longer than men, she's perfectly healthy, and there's no reason to think that she WOULDN'T be there for another 30-odd years or longer.

[jenmito]

28. NO. She's already SOS and seems pretty darn happy there. n/t

[road2000]

29. I'm a woman,

I'd love to see a third woman on the court, and I'd love that woman to be Hillary. I would hope, should Obama consider her, that he won't get weird about nominating two women in a row.

And, as a woman who's only a couple of years behind Hillary, I don't think 61 is "too old" for a SCOTUS job. But if he wanted to go younger, he could always nominate Michelle...

[karynnj]

41. I would object on the grounds of nepotism for Michelle, who I think is fantastic

[road2000]

44. Kidding, really. n/t

[karynnj]

46. I figured as much

:hi:

[burning rain]

97. Nepotism isn't so bad, as long as you keep it in the family.

.

[Sebastian Doyle]

30. If she were in her 40's maybe.

But at 62, I don't think so. We need someone on the court who can be there as long as Stevens has been, and who can be there after Opie and Sammy the Fish are gone. Let alone Fat Tony & Clarence the Clown.

[LittleBlue]

32. Too old. I want someone under 50.

[AlinPA]

33. Yes and it woud be explosive for the republicans. The media would go berserk. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. She has a powerful intellect and a powerful will

She would be a real force for conservatives to contend with. Although I wish she were younger, I bet she would serve for 20 years and they would be important years. As an ex Senator who was respectful of that institution when she served in ik, she would win confirmation.

If she wanted it, I would support the move even though she now plays an important role at State.

[philly_bob]

35. Or Bill... (nt)

[karynnj]

42. Hell NO

In the first place it would be an awful idea given his health and age. In the second, he was impeached. I would imagine, having read the prepared statements of many Democrats as they voted "no", that they would not relish making a second vote placing him on the Supreme Court. A nomination by Obama would put them all in a position of likely having to choose between their conscience and voting against a party leader. It is one thing to argue that nothing rose to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and another to not see it as a reason to not have him on the Supreme Court. (It seems clear he attempted to coach at least one witness and he clearly at minimum stretched the truth under oath.)

In addition, his life is politics and that would be inappropriate for a SCJ. Imagine Clinton never again rallying a crowd of people - do you honestly thing that would make him happy?

[karynnj]

36. No

She already has an important job that she is doing. Managing change in the State Department and being a diplomat are important. She has now been doing that for slightly over a year. I would assume that there was some learning curve and that there are likely things that she started that she should see to fruition.

In addition, she was mostly a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law firm. She is clearly intelligent, but she is not an exceptional jurist. Not to mention, for Supreme Court, there would be a review of all that she did at the Rose Law firm. While the Republicans did not find the smoking gun they wanted, there were some problems.

I think that Obama can find someone who could be easier to confirm, who has spent their career as a jurist. Not to mention, she is in her 60s. I think they should look for someone younger because they would likely be there longer. (Note - this is not anti- Clinton - I would say the same thing if people were speaking of Kerry.)

[BootinUp]

37. She is very capable in any number of roles

I would support it yes. Problem is she may not be interested in it.

[harkadog]

40. She couldn't get pass the Senate.

She flunked the DC bar exam and that would be used against her. Yes I know there have been many people who have failed the bar exam and eventually became lawyers. But do you see any on the SC in recent years? I don't.

[ShadowLiberal]

43. No way, she's too old, we need a young liberal

Anyone 60 or older is too old for a supreme court nominee, I mean the conservatives are nominating people under 50, why do we continue to make the same mistakes of nominating mid 50 people or older?

[totodeinhere]

47. Agreed. n/t

[Lord Helmet]

57. +1

[craigmatic]

45. no she should run in 2016 no other dem has the stature to follow Obama but her. n/t

[Beacool]

51. Frankly, I think that by 2016 we'll end up with a Republican president.

It's the political cycle. No Democrat in decades has won after a Democratic president has served two terms in office.

Besides, why would she want to put herself through that nightmare after the way she was treated the last time around? The media was appalling and so was the left and the leadership of her own party.

x(

[karynnj]

53. 3 terms in a row is rare for any party, but it happens - and seems to happen with

transformational Presidents. There were 4 in a row with FDR and the Republicans had 3 in a row starting with Obama.

If you look at it that they were the transformational Presidents (in one case from bad to good and the other from good to bad), and Obama is one too. Both changed how America saw itself. (If you want to argue Clinton was, it's a harder case to make, but Gore actually DID win the election.)

I do agree with you that HRC is very unlikely to want to run.

[Beacool]

66. Well.............

First of all, let's just wait to see how "transformational" Obama truly is by the end of his term. Why do you think that he's transformational at this point? I don't think that Obama changed how the nation sees itself. Any Democrat would have won in 2008 for 3 main reasons: 1) the country was fed up with Bush, et al.; 2) McCain's choice for VP; and the foremost reason, 3) the economic collapse in Sept. of that year.

FDR may have been the exception, but that was mainly due to the war.

;)

[mr715]

68. Though I agree

I want to just push back:

I doubt McCain would have picked Palin had Sen. Clinton been the nominee.

[Beacool]

79. Correct.

He probably would have picked a man.

[SwampG8r]

71. yup

you are absolutely right

and a gator girl too
when i saw this thread i thought of you beacool
i expect it to become a riot scene
i hope i am disappointed in that expectation
hope you are well

[Beacool]

80. Hi, fellow Gator!!!

How are things in swampland?

Yeah, expect the fur to fly at any moment. That's the kind of effect I have around here. LOL!!!

:hi:

[karynnj]

82. Why do I think he will be seen as transformational?

I think the passage of the healthcare bill and various portions of the Stimulus, such as the large amount of funding for High Speed Rail and green energy are moves in a different direction. I think Obama, with Secretary Clinton, have made significant changes in foreign policy. One of the clearest examples is the Kerry/Lugar/Berman bill that uses foreign aid to help civilians which has created an important shift in Pakistan. (Here, we may be indirectly strengthening Zadari, who while not perfect, is moving Pakistan to be a democracy. He asked the government to rescind the special powers that were granted Musharraf when he was President. This potentially could be the most important thing done last year in terms of the War in Afghanistan.) This was a Kerry, Biden, and Hagel idea from their trip (where they ended up grounded by a snowstorm), but it would likely not have been implemented by a Republican President. Other examples are harder to see like the Casey/Lugar bill that funded a significant effort against world hunger and revising how foreign aid will be delivered. Here, I think the nuclear review (not NEW START which is a continuation) is one example.

I did not say that this is because Obama is special. I think it was because the country was ready to shift back to the left. I think the same case could be made that any Democrat would have won in 1992 - Bush senior was at 33% approval, the recession was lingering and the Iran/Contra and BCCI scandals hurt GHWB.

What was transformational was that Obama did win and he has used his Presidency and the large Democratic majorities to change things. I would agree that ANY Democrat, who won as President would have done so - including Hillary Clinton. Had HRC won, you would be posting articles on the great changes she led the way on.

[Lord Helmet]

54. fiction

"Besides, why would she want to put herself through that nightmare after the way she was treated the last time around? The media was appalling and so was the left and the leadership of her own party."

:nopity:

[Beacool]

62. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

But it is not fiction.

:shrug:

[mkultra]

88. well, not yet at least

but soon to hit the fiction shelves of used bookstores everywhere.

[StevieM]

59. Hey Bea!

I agree that after the way she was treated she wouldn't want to run again. Too bad....she would have been a fabulous president.

I'm not sure about when the GOP will come back to power. They act like a bunch of psychopaths. So it could take awhile. When they finally come back I think they'll give us a presidency that makes George Bush and Ronald Reagan look good by comparison. But it could take until 2020. Liz Cheney and Paul Ryan can compete over who gets to destroy the country.

I think Kagan would make a good enough justice, just like Sotomayor. We're not going to get another Thuroood Marshall. But we just need to keep holding our court seats and eventually pick up one of theirs. Scalia and Co. are terrifying.

Steve

[Beacool]

63. Yes, she would have been a great president.

And I'm still seething with anger at the way she was treated by the media and the party leadership once they decided that they wanted Obama to be the nominee. All the backroom deals and backstabbings were one part of that trashy book (Game Change) that were mostly true. I said it before and I'll say it again, I rather give money to a crack addict than to the DNC. I now only volunteer time and give money to those local and state candidates I personally know. For example, like Sen. Menendez and before him Gov. Corzine. They both live in my town.

As for 2016, unless the economy is doing sooooo well by then, I would be surprised if the Republicans don't win the WH. This is no personal attack on Obama, but Americans don't tend to want the same party at the top for too long. FDR was the exception, but there was a world war going on.

As for SCOTUS, I think that Kagan is the front runner. She's middle of the road and the right won't have too much agita over her.

;-)


Nice seeing you, my friend.

:hug:

[JTFrog]

61. The way she was treated? LOL!

[mr715]

69. Wow

She continued running. So did Kucinich in 2004. Clinton at least gave all her delegates to Obama.

I'm happy she did. She kept Obama on his toes, kept him moving.

[mkultra]

89. spot on

She singed the agreement barring FL and MI, then cryed when she thought the votes would help her. dry your tears little girl.

[Beacool]

91. What sexist B.S.!!!

:thumbsdown:

[mkultra]

92. that is what happened

[Beacool]

49. How about what Hillary wants?

The woman wanted to be president, not be in the Supreme Court. She has stated repeatedly that she has no interest in being a Justice.

It'll probably be Kagan. She's middle of the road and not likely to be too severely opposed by the Republicans.

[saltpoint]

50. I doubt if she wants the job. And I'd rather see a younger nominee

with a view toward establishing a long-term left-leaning vote.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

73. I'd like to see someone younger as well.

[saltpoint]

74. -- --

:hi:

:thumbsup:

[akbacchus_BC]

96. I totally agree with you my friend. SOS Clinton maybe a good pic for

the SCOTUS, but President Obama needs to pick much younger people who can carry on the Dems legacy!

[proteus_lives]

52. Nah.

[boppers]

55. Failed the Bar, and too right-wing for me.

A "Goldwater Democrat" isn't exactly the best replacement for Stevens.

[Beacool]

64. She was already considering moving to Arkansas to be with Bill.

She halfheartedly took the DC bar once. Do you honestly think that she wouldn't have passed it the second time around? Besides, passing the bar the first time out is not indicative of the quality of attorney the person will become. She was named twice as one of the best 100 attorneys in the nation.

:eyes:

[JTFrog]

84. Strong in this one, the cognitive dissonance is.

Halfheartedly took the DC bar once? All those years of law school to halfheartedly take a bar exam? Thank goodness we didn't elect her President.

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

I think Bernstein pretty much nailed it when he suggested that the blow to her ego may have played a role in her decision to move to Arkansas, where she passed the much easier bar exam.

[Beacool]

90. Hate all you want, but the woman is extremely bright.

Even her enemies admit to it. Hillary was ambivalent whether to stay in DC or follow her heart to Arkansas. You're the one with the disconnect, my friend. She would have been a good president.

:shrug:

[quakerboy]

56. If we hit a trifecta

And Grayson follows Obama into office, with a 65 vote senate majority, and he has to pick a nominee to replace Roberts after some strange health occurrence makes him reconsider his position and resign, Then I would say asking Hillary might be a good idea, just to stuff it down the collective republican craw.

But in the mean time, its my understanding she doesn't want that position, may have her own ambitions for higher offices, and is otherwise a potentially very divisive choice in uncertain waters.

[MrMickeysMom]

58. Let me say this about that....

[Grinchie]

60. Walmart would love it!

[Knight Hawk]

67. Think Again

As I wrote on another blog years ago when this was first brought up ,I do not believe Hillary has any interest in being on the Supreme court.Just take a minute and think of her personality.She likes to be in more active roles and more in the spotlight .She likes to lead ,if possible,and be in the thick of things .She is an independent type of person not interested in being one of nine equals.I do not believe she has any desire to spend hours studying dry legal papers and then writing long dry arguments.Look at the personalities of the people on the court ,if you can find anyone on there with one,lol.Hillary likes to be out and about trying to change things in a more dynamic ,colorful way .I may be wrong but I doubt it .And no, I do not have any "scientific evidence" to prove what I simply perceive or intuit.There MAY be a flicker of hope in her heart that she can still be president.She is NOT dreaming of being on the court.

[SwampG8r]

70. i just got here and i bet

by the time i get to the bottom of the replies a riot has broken out

[SwampG8r]

72. ok im impressed

no riot
but some unneeded things tossed about
all in all good job people
you let me down
which is what i expected overall anyways

[NorthCarolina]

75. As DLC though, wouldn't she lean towards favoring Corporate interests?

I am not trying to incite a riot with the pro-Hillary folks, but the Clintons are very close to the DLC, and I'm well aware of the interests the DLC represents, so it is a valid concern for me personally were she to be nominated.

[BlueMTexpat]

76. I think that she'd be great ... but not right now.

She's doing a great job as SOS.

[blue_onyx]

77. I would be fine with Hillary being the nominee

But I think it's unlikely.

[harun]

78. Not Liberal enough, too Corporate.

[Beacool]

81. Sounds just like Obama.

:7

[Dr Morbius]

83. While I wouldn't have a problem with Justice Hillary Clinton...

...I think she's more useful to the country as SecState. She's doing quite well there, I think, better than Rice or Powell or Albright. The closer she is to actual policy, the better, I think. The SCOTUS rules on a handful of cases every year, and the Chief Justice - conservative John Roberts - decides which ones. Frankly, I think putting Mrs. Clinton in the Supreme Court is a waste of material.

It's not like the job is a step down, but the Hill's a better fit where her energy and determination - and diplomatic experience - are more useful talents. She has the wrong personality, entirely, for SCOTUS. She needs to be in the action, and she's useful there. Leave her at State, I think, where she has been successful and her skills are appropriate to the task.

[Kahuna]

85. She'd be great. ..

I'd love to see but I don't think it will ever happen. :(

[Fire1]

86. No. n/t

[MadHound]

87. No, no corporatist moderates for the Supreme Court,

How about somebody who actually values people over profits.

[AnnieBW]

93. HECK NO!

She's doing a great job as SecState. Who else could get 46 Heads of State together in one place? While I think that she'd be a great Justice, she's needed right where she is!

[Arugula Latte]

94. Nope.

Someone under 50 would be much better.

[akbacchus_BC]

95. Personally, SOS Clinton is more effective in her current portfolio, SOS

is a big deal but if she got a SCOTUS, she will do well but President Obama needs to pick much younger people for SCOTUS! Those picks are long time serving! I may be wrong!

[craigmatic]

98. She's probably not liberal enough but it's hard to tell how liberal she really is.

[davidpdx]

99. This is a media hype story and there's no truth to it

It's simply the corporate media speculating and people falling for it.

[TheKentuckian]

100. Too corporate, too neocon/neolib (same thing different fables), and a little long in the tooth

This position discerns and interprets the Constitution and isn't a life time achievement reward.

This is one of the most conservative courts in about the last hundred years and folks with two brain cells to rub together think it is wise to throw another corporatist on the bench?

Or how about another champion of the unitary executive, that will advance the interests of the people? POIT!!!!!

What the fuck kind of country do we want this to be?