Justice Clinton?

[babylonsister]

I must admit, this never occurred to me, but why not?


Justice Clinton?

by Mark McKinnon

It’s not as far-fetched as you might think. Mark McKinnon and Myra Adams on how Supreme Court retirements could persuade the secretary of State to take a high-court seat.


The political bombshell of the year could turn out to be Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton.

Don’t laugh. It’s politics. Stuff happens. And a lot stranger stuff has happened in recent years. Two words. Sarah Palin.

Last week, ABC News reported: “Lawyers for President Obama have been working behind the scenes to prepare for the possibility of one, and maybe two Supreme Court vacancies this spring. Court watchers believe two of the more liberal members of the court, Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could decide to step aside for reasons of age and health. That would give the president his second and third chance to shape his legacy on the Supreme Court.”

In one stroke, Obama would eliminate any remaining bad feelings—and become a Hillaryland hero.

more...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-08/justice-clinton/?cid=hp:mainpromo2

[Romulox]

1. She's woefully unqualified. nt

[Deep13]

6. How so? nt

[wyldwolf]

7. because she's a Clinton. Why, the very name means "unqualified" to some...

...despite the tons of qualification attached to that name.

[Romulox]

10. That sword cuts two ways; neither is being a Clinton a qualification.

PS: Can you cite an opinion authored by Ms. Clinton? :hi:

[wyldwolf]

15. Judicial experience is not a qualification to serve on the Supreme Court.

[Romulox]

22. There are no formal requirements. That doesn't mean it's not a *really* good idea.

Your post = oh brother! :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

26. Putting a supreme court justice on the bench who is an ally of the president is always a good idea

Your post = oh brother! :eyes:

[Romulox]

29. A "good idea" for WHOM? She'll be there long after this or that President is gone.

You're talking political football, and the rest of us seem to be talking about what is best for this country.

None of which matters, since Clinton has not a chance of confirmation. :hi:

[wyldwolf]

36. the president.

:hi:

Good luck ever getting a Dennis Kucinich style "progressive" even nominated.

[hlthe2b]

39. Actually, as a former Senator who has likewise already been

confirmed as SOS, I think she would have a very good chance of confirmation.

[karynnj]

47. I'm not sure about that

There is a strong belief that the President should get the people he chooses for the cabinet. In addition, in that position, she would be implementing the plans the President agrees to.

As a Supreme Court justice, she would be independent. In assition, issues that weren't important for Secretary of state become important. This would be a vote that might be hard for conservative Democrats in red states. If she was the top legal mind of her generation, it would be worth fighting - but she is not.

[hlthe2b]

57. No SC confirmation is going to be without a fight...

especially when the nomination is coming from a Democratic President. It could go either way, I agree, but I do think there would be at least a modicum of remaining civility towards her by the Senate, given her having been both "one of them" and having been confirmed already as SOS. That said, I am not implying it would be without ugliness.

[karynnj]

44. Would you say the same for all the President's allies?

How about all of these with at least Hillary's expertise and support for Obama?

Durbin
Leahy
Levin
Kerry
McCaskill
Schumer - behind the scenes, while publicly supporting Clinton
Reid

All lawyers, all Senators, all allies of Obama in getting the nomination. Many with better ethics records.

[wyldwolf]

50. yep.

[karynnj]

62. Well you get credit for consistancy

I would actually prefer he pick jurists.

[bornskeptic]

100. Why? Many of the greatest justices had no judicial experience.

Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and William O. Douglas are a few examples. Hugo Black spent a few months as a traffic court judge in a small town in Alabama. Thurgood Marshall only had judicial experience because LBJ decided it would easier for him to be confirmed as the first African-American on the Supreme Court if he spent some time on an appellate court first.

[Romulox]

70. So Joe Lieberman, Arlen Specter for SCOTUS!

:rofl:

[rug]

79. As many as Earl Warren when nomnated.

[karynnj]

17. Well, she has no judicial experience

but there are no requirements for Supreme Court Justice. I think Obama will prefer a less controversial person who has a long time judicial record. (Note that I would say the same thing for Biden and Senators, who have not been judges.)

I think Hillary is qualified to be Senator, President, VP, Governor, etc - so I am not saying she is doesn't have qualifications. Not to mention, no one has said that Bill Clinton is unqualified, so your post goes too far.

[Romulox]

9. She's never served as a judge in any capacity, for one.

She's not a jurist.

[wyldwolf]

16. which isn't a required qualification

[Romulox]

20. Right, it's not a disqualification, but neither is it a qualification.

I said she was "unqualified", not "disqualified". :hi:

[wyldwolf]

28. there are none. The president can nominate anyone he feels would do the job well

:hi:

[Romulox]

30. You need to skim ahead in your civics text to the part about the confirmation hearings..nt

[wyldwolf]

33. again, the President can nominate anyone he feels will do the job well

The confirmations are another subject entirely.

[Romulox]

38. He's not going to nominate her. It's a childish fantasy. nt

[wyldwolf]

43. what's childish is your knee-jerk "unqualified" response to the thought of it

[Sebastian Doyle]

75. Maybe it should be

If it was, we wouldn't have Opie Roberts on the court at all right now, much less leading it. :evilfrown:

[Deep13]

18. Honestly, I would like to see a few non-career judges on the court.

I think the court sometimes forgets how their theories work in the real world.

[hlthe2b]

31. Where do people get the idea you have to be a judge? hell...

one doesn't even have to be a lawyer, though that is a rare occurrence among justices in recent history....


BTW, H. Clinton worked on the House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry if you recall.

[Romulox]

34. From reading legal opinions, perhaps? The idea that being a Clinton is enough is a fantasy...

:hi:

[hlthe2b]

46. Please clarify,,,,

I asked what makes you think one has to be a judge and further stated that it is not a requirement to even be a lawyer and you state "from reading legal opinions, perhaps" While I agree that in this day and age it is highly unlikely any Presdent would nominate a non-lawyer, let alone, BO, a former law professor, please show me where it is a requirement (or which legal opinions confirm a requirement) for a SC justice to be both a lawyer and former jurist.

BTW, I have seen several knowledgeable scholars reporting on the SC, who suggest a Hillary Clinton (or a Jennifer Granholm) on the USSC is not all that unlikely. You might want to consider their reasons. Here is one from last May:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/06/courtwatch/entry4996182.shtml
This is not to say, however, that President Obama necessarily will be forced to select a sitting judge, or even practicing lawyer, to replace Justice Souter. There are plenty of excellent Court candidates who are not currently serving on federal- or state-court benches or churning up billable hours in private practice. They fall into that fairly common group I like to call "recovering lawyers;" people who, like me, have a legal education and background but who no longer have clients or have to routinely go to court.

These people have legal training and experience but are not currently a part of the "system." Like scholar Jeffrey Rosen, one of the most insightful legal analysts ever to focus upon the Supreme Court. Or author John Grisham, at left, whose novels suggest a level of understanding about criminal law that belies their pop status. Or Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times reporter, and Yale Law School graduate, who covered the Supreme Court for decades before her recent retirement. These people surely represent what the President meant when he talked about a need for adding diversity of background and experience on the Supreme Court. They all would be welcome additions to the group.


Hillary Clinton, who one day probably will be a Justice, also fits this bill. As do current governors Jennifer Granholm, at left, of Michigan and Christine Gregoire of Washington. Each of these deeply accomplished women got their law degrees, worked in the law for bit, saw the light, and changed careers. Clinton won't get the nod this time but she'll be in the running down the road. Granholm just might get the call this time—like the president, she went to Harvard Law School and then into politics.

Remember retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor? Of course you do. She dabbled in politics briefly in Arizona—like me she was a "recovering attorney"-- before returning to the law. How did that work out? She was a dogged consensus-builder on the Court and one of its most popular modern-day justices. President Obama would be well served if he could find from among the many qualified candidates a nominee who brought such an extra dimension into the cloistered world of the Court. more at the link

[Romulox]

68. Sandra O'Connor is a TERRIBLE example!

Her Judicial tenure was characterized by whole cloth invention of legal doctrine, such as the infamous "undue burden" standard she enunciated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[hlthe2b]

72. She was cited in the CBS piece-- not by me

I am not a SDO admirer either.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hlthe2b]

71. So you think a waving smiley counters...

telling another DUer to "shove it?" umm ok. I DO agree that RBG is the most eminent jrist currently sitting on SCOTUS, however. See we can civilly agree (and disagree)

[dsc]

41. neither had justice jackson

who presided over the Nuremburg trials, nor had Earl Warren who was Chief Justice of the Court when it ruled against segregation and in favor of one person one vote.

[Romulox]

42. Hillary Clinton doesn't have anything like those legal qualifications, however...

I'm afraid you've highlighted Ms. Clinton's deficiencies more than downplayed them with this comparison...

[dsc]

51. earl warren was a politician just like her

He may have been AG of California but even that is pretty much administrative, not legal.

[karynnj]

99. But if you want a politician, pick one known for integrity or concensus building

Your avatar would be a better choice - though it would take reminding people of the conservative Democrat he was as governor. (Not to mention you would lose an activist voice.)

Though there was substantial spin on the latter, there are no real examples of it. There were many MSM accounts of how Clinton humbly took a back seat and worked well with everyone, but there were many stories of her abrasiveness and it looks like the Senate Democrats are part of the reason she lost.

[CreekDog]

32. "woefulling"

:rofl:

[Romulox]

35. Ah yes. A typo! Well played. nt

[CreekDog]

45. When a post is underwhelming

the typo may be the most notable thing about it. :D

[Whisp]

58. she lies

her campaign was packed full miserable with lies and ugly inuendo. Tuzla is just one big black splotch against her, and her saying McCain would be a better President than Obama, and on and on - why the hell she went there who the heck knows but it really damaged her credibility. bizarro stuff.


but I think she has done a pretty job as SoS - I was wary of her at first - that she and bill would undermine the President but seems like she knows what her job is and is taking it seriously. couple real bonehead moves, re: that presser in Pakistan where she got all beligerent and lost her bearings but these things happen to all of us.


Now knowing too that her so called husband is such a fucking albatross around her neck, I feel a bit of sympathy for her. Why she doesn't dump the creep is beyond me but hey,people have their reasons.

[Beacool]

107. She NEVER said McCain would be a better president.

She said that she and McCain had experience while Obama had a speech. Pretty accurate assessment if you asked me..........

:eyes:

[Lord Helmet]

114. on your last point

From Game Change, apparently the philandering is still going on.

The authors write on page 50 about the "war room within a war room" that Hillary Clinton put together to deal with questions about her husband's "libido." The circle of trust included media strategist Howard Wolfson, lawyer Cheryl Mills and confidant Patti Solis Doyle.

The war room within a war room dismissed or discredited much of the gossip floating around, but not all of it. The stories about one woman were more concrete, and after some discreet fact-finding, the group concluded that they were true: that Bill was indeed having an affair -- and not a frivolous one-night stand but a sustained romantic relationship. .... For months, thereafter, the war room within a war room braced for the explosion, which her aides knew could come at any moment.

[hlthe2b]

19. ???

I could not disagree more. (woefully, btw)

[liberalpragmatist]

86. You realize that many of the BEST justices haven't been career judges

In fact, many constitutional scholars say that the current court's all-judge bench is problematic, because it's too distant from both practical politics and law.

Many of the BEST justices - even quite recently - never were judges prior to being elevated. Earl Warren. Hugo Black. William Douglas. Charles Evans Hughes. Louis Brandeis. Byron White. Arthur Goldberg.

A lot of court watchers have said that former politicians actually make some of the best judges because they're able to forge consensus on issues better than the career judges. Bill Clinton is said to wish he'd been able to appoint a former pol to the bench - he offered Mario Cuomo a spot, but Cuomo vacillated and turned it down.

[D-Lee]

105. Ms Clinton is highly qualified and was an outstanding leader in the American Bar Association

She was very well respected and quite prominent as an attorney.

I followed her legal career before her First Lady years ...

[DailyGrind51]

122. And, just what makes YOU qualified to pass judgement on the Secretary of State's

qualifications, or lack there of, for the SCOTUS?

[jefferson_dem]

2. Yes!

Justice Hillary Clinton - That would be a dream come true.

[rosesaylavee]

3. Hmmm.

I like her as Secretary of State. Of course if she wants this over that, I think she would do a fine job. When I clicked on this, thought it was going to be President Clinton as SCOTUS. That would be a good choice too. He would certainly get under the skin of Scalia and Thomas and it would be fun to watch.

[babylonsister]

4. She's said the job is very tiring and she won't be doing it for

8 years, should she have the opportunity. The travel alone must be hell, even if she has all the plane perks. So when she's ready to pack it in, this could be an option maybe.

[karynnj]

24. As President Clinton has the problem of having had his license temporarily suspended

I seriously think he would be filibustered.

[hlthe2b]

49. Ummm... we are talking HILLARY Clinton, not Bill

William Jefferson Clinton's temporary suspension has nothing to do with this.

[karynnj]

63. You might want to look at the post I was responding too

"When I clicked on this, thought it was going to be President Clinton as SCOTUS. That would be a good choice too. He would certainly get under the skin of Scalia and Thomas and it would be fun to watch."

You need to follow the conversation. :hi:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[harun]

66. +1, we need Liberals to balance the court.

[karynnj]

8. I don't think so - way too hot and defeating her, a Republican dream come true

Her legal career was mostly working for the Rose Law firm. This was to earn money for the family because the Arkansas governor was not highly paid. In addition, it would reopen some ethics issues. (Do you want to see all the Rose Law firm records issues again?)

There is nothing in her legal background that could be used to say that she should be one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices. Do you think she could withstand a filibuster? I would bet there are some Democrats who would vote against her.

Here is McKinnon's biography. He was a McCain and W consultant who is connected with McCurry who worked for Clinton. (At one point he left McCain's staff saying he would not work against Obama, but returned to prep Palin for the debate.)

The VP rumour makes more sense than this.

[Jennicut]

11. Neither of these rumors make sense. The problem with going with someone so political

is that you risk major backlash. I would go with someone without a political background.

[babylonsister]

13. Good points all; maybe McKinnon is just hoping, or had nothing better

to consider. Or he's just a rumormonger!

[karynnj]

27. I'm with you - this seems to be an attempt tostir up the primary wars of 2008

with some Democrats becoming angry if Obama keeps Biden, which unless Biden is ill, which absolutely does NOT look to be the case, he should, and he does nominates eminent jurists - taking both as a slight to Clinton.

[Deep13]

12. Honestly, she's too old.

Bush appointed two young guys who will serve for decades. If we appoint a woman in her sixties, she might have to be replaced relatively soon. We would not want that to happen with an R. in the WH. Scalia has been around since the 1980s and is not showing any sign of quitting soon.

[CBGLuthier]

25. Exactly.

Even old timer Clarence Thomas is only 61. No one should be nominated who is older than him.

[Fla Dem]

123. Would love to see a SCJ Hillary Clinton, but that was my 1st thought too. Here are all their ages.

Have to have justices that will out last Roberts and Alito.

Hillary Clinton.......63


Stevens........90
Ginsburg........77
Scalia...........74
Breyer...........72
Alito.............60
Sotomayor.....56
Roberts..........55

[hlthe2b]

14. I don't think the idea is remotely strange ....

She has a brilliant mind and the breadth/depth of experience I would love to see on the court.

[DURHAM D]

21. Hillary would be the first person to say she is not qualified.

She would then list current members of the court who are also not qualified - like Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts.

The only good thing about a Hillary appointment is that she is a Methodist and given that 2/3s of the court is Roman Catholic it would stop that trend.

[Double T]

23. HRC. Great Secretary of State.

Excellent Justice. Superior President.

[TwilightGardener]

37. Are there currently any justices who haven't been judges previously?

If there's no recent precedent, then it would be a Harriet-Miers-type debacle--the GOP and the media would scream that she's unqualified, and her name would have to be withdrawn.

[dsc]

53. earl warren

you may have heard of him.

[hlthe2b]

55. Backgrounds of all (previously non-Judge) Chief & Associate Justices

What Supreme Court Justices were not judges prior to being nominated to the Supreme Court?


Chief Justices

John Jay..............................Governor
John Rutledge......................Governor
Oliver Ellsworth....................Senator
John Marshall.......................Secretary of State
Roger Taney.........................Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Attorney General
Salmon Chase......................Secretary of the Treasury, Governor
Morrison Waite.....................Lawyer
Melville Fuller.......................Representative
Edward White.......................Lawyer
William Howard Taft..............U.S. President
Charles Hughes....................Secretary of State
Harlan Stone........................Attorney General
Fred Vinson..........................Secretary of the Treasury
Earl Warren..........................Governor


Associate Justices

William Cushing...................Member, Continental Congress
James Wilson......................Member, Continental Congress
William Paterson..................Governor
Samuel Chase.....................Member, Maryland General Assembly; Continental Congress
Bushrod Washington............Lawyer
William Johnson..................Representative, S.C. House
Henry B. Livingston.............Military
Gabriel Duvall.....................Representative
Joseph Story.......................Representative
Smith Thompson.................Secretary of the Navy
John McLean.......................Unknown
Henry Baldwin....................Representative
James M. Wayne.................Mayor, Representative
Philip P. Barbour..................Representative
John McKinley.....................Senator, Representative
Levi Woodbury....................Governor, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of the Navy
Benjamin Curtis..................Lawyer
John Campbell....................Lawyer
Nathan Clifford....................Attorney General
Noah Swayne......................Member, Ohio Legislature, U.S. Attorney
Samuel Miller......................Lawyer
David Davis........................Senator
Joseph Bradley....................Lawyer
John M. Harlan (I)...............Kentucky Attorney General
Stanley Matthews................U.S. Attorney, Military
Horace Gray........................Lawyer
Lucius Lamar.......................Member, Georgia House, Secretary of the Interior
George Shiras, Jr.................Lawyer
Howell Jackson....................Member, Tennessee House
Edward D. White..................Lawyer
William Henry Moody............Attorney General
Mahlon Pitney.....................Congress (office unspecified)
James McReynolds...............Attorney General
Louis Brandeis.....................Lawyer
George Sutherland...............Congress (office unspecified)
Pierce Butler.......................Lawyer
Edward Sanford...................Attorney General
Owen Roberts......................Assistant District Attorney
Hugo L. Black......................Senator
Stanley Forman Reed...........Solicitor General
Felix Frankfurter..................Lawyer
William O. Douglas...............Law Professor, Chairman of SEC
Frank Murphy......................Mayor, Governor, Attorney General
James Francis Byrnes...........Secretary of State
Robert H. Jackson................Attorney General
Harold Hitz Burton................Senator
Tom Clark...........................Attorney General
John M. Harlan (II)..............Lawyer
Arthur J. Goldberg...............Secretary of Labor
Abe Fortas..........................President and Chairman of the SEC
Thurgood Marshall...............Lawyer
Lewis F. Powell....................Lawyer

[TwilightGardener]

59. Interesting list, thanks. But I still think it will turn into Miers Part Two--looks

politically-based rather than qualification-based.

[southernyankeebelle]

40. I would think that would be a great move for her. Plus she knows what she is doing.

[Robeson]

48. I prefer someone younger...

...a person who will be on the court for the next 30+ years.

[Pirate Smile]

52. I like the idea.

[Captain Hilts]

54. This was discussed when folks wondered why she'd leave the senate. Friends of mine that teach law-

say on the Supremes is where her deliberate nature would be really useful. Interesting.

Me? I'd prefer Bubba on the Supremes. He needs to focus.

But, making Hill a Supreme might set the stage to make Michelle a supreme. that would be cool for both.

[liberalpragmatist]

85. Honestly, even Obama would make a good justice

Back during the '08 primaries, Jeffrey Toobin speculated that if Hillary won, she'd offer Obama a Supreme Court seat.

[Beacool]

60. "President" would be a far more suitable title.

But it's up to her to decide what she wants to do in the future.

:shrug:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

61. She is too old for that gig

She's not too old to be president but she's too old for a vulnerable lifetime appointment like SCOTUS, IMO.

(Not too old to do the job but you want to get more years out of the appointments.)

[secondwind]

64. DAMNIT!!! Please, Please, we need YOUNGER, qualified candidates! We just can't

fill the SCOTUS bench with people in their 60's, no matter how qualified!!

[blue_onyx]

65. I doubt she would be nominated

I wouldn't mind her being picked but I see Obama going with a younger candidate. It will probably be someone who has been a judge. Being a judge isn't a qualification (he did interview Jennifer Granholm for the last opening) but Obama will probably make a more traditional pick since the DEM now only have 59 votes.

[wisteria]

69. I highly doubt this. She is SOS. Why would someone even suggest this?

I have heard nothing about her being unhappy in her position as SOS. And, since she has not practiced law nor ever been a judge, I doubt she would be the best choice for the Supreme Court.

[Beacool]

76. She has practiced law.

She was named twice as one of the best 100 lawyers in the country.

;)

[wisteria]

84. That was many, many years ago and she hasn't kept up with it. n/t

[krawhitham]

73. TOO OLD

I wants someone that will out live me

[Sebastian Doyle]

74. Too old and too conservative

We need justices who will be there as long as Opie Roberts, if not longer. Hillary is already 62.

Also, while she was an attorney, she's never been a judge. I don't believe anyone should be on the Supreme Court without some actual judicial experience. That's one of the reasons Roberts was so horribly unqualified to be Chief Injustice. He had never seen the back side of a court bench until 2002, and even that was a purely political appointment from the Chimp as a reward for Opie coaching Ted Olson in the Florida 2000 fraud.

Obama, on the other hand, went with Sotomayor, who had years of experience on the bench. That's the right way to do it.

[argonaut]

77. Too old, and too ...Clinton.

The Clintons are toxic to too many people to survive a nomination fight.

[avaistheone1]

78. Hillary for VP

On Thom Hartmann show last week one of there news reporters said that Hillary's name is being tossed around in high places as VP for a 2012 run.

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. I would bet my bottom dollar...

If SP does run for president on the GOP ticket, and her poll numbers make her a viable candidate, Hillary will resign as SOS and challenge President Obama in the primaries. No way Hillary will stand on the sideline and watch some ditz become the first female president.

[karynnj]

101. Very unlikely

1) She could not beat Obama. As personally unpopular as Carter was, the far more charismatic Kennedy could not not beat him.

2) Unlike Kennedy, Clinton owes her current position to Obama. Without Obama's nominating her as SoS, she would have returned to the Senate without the seniority to chair a major committee. Quitting and running against him would look very ungrateful to many.

3) Embedded in your scenario is that Palin could win.

[Beacool]

108. Obama ran a good campaign, but more Democrats voted for Hillary than for him.

I know that you have no use for the woman, but she happens to be the most popular Democrat in the party and has been so since at least last March. The fact that the left doesn't care for her means squat to most people. No, I don't think that Hillary would run against Obama, and not because she wouldn't have plenty of support (the bloom is definitely off him), but she would never divide the party the way Kennedy did in 1980. After what the party did to the Clintons they don't deserve their loyalty, but they are better people than the petty a-holes in Congress who worked against them behind their backs.

[Lord Helmet]

112. more revisionist history from you

The Clintons DID divide the party with their race-baiting and poor sportsmanship during the primary. She had every advantage but ran a truly awful campaign. She has nobody to blame but herself, yet you continue to play the victim card.

President Obama could have left Hillary the junior Senator from NY with no seniority and no committee chair, but he gave her a plum spot in his administration. She has moved on. It's long past time for you to do the same.

[Beacool]

113. Oh please, don't make me laugh.

You're a rabid Clinton hater, so I couldn't care less what you think of her or me, for that matter. The Obama campaign wasn't saintly, just because he pretended to be above the fray while his Chicago crew did all the dirty work doesn't make him unaware of what they were doing. Race baiting? Bullshit!!! Obama should have been vetted early on, it was precisely his race that made many in the media treat him with tenterhooks while they trashed Hillary at every turn. They all feared being labeled as "racists", none of them cared about being called "sexists". If anything, he was given a pass for months due to his race. It took an SNL skit to finally prompt the media to start vetting him the way they should have done from the very beginning.

[karynnj]

115. It is not true that more Democrats voted for Hillary

The fact is there was NO national popular vote. The one created by the Clintons excluded a few states that had caucuses because there was no popular vote - but it included a huge vote from Porto Rico! In addition, there were polls in states like NJ in the late spring that showed that many Clinton voters would have voted Obama if the election were later.

I did not say that she was unpopular - she is popular, but there is no poll that I have seen that asks "Who is your favorite Democrat." I stand by everything I said. Hillary could not take the nomination from Obama if she wanted to - and its not because she is Saint Hillary, who wouldn't do anything to split the Democratic party. Some of us remember her reluctance to concede even after all the primaries were over.

As to "after what the party did to the Clintons" I guess you forget the 8 years when EVERY Democrat had his back - with decorated veterans defending his patriotism and everyone defending him after his complete lack of judgment in having an improper relationship with an intern young enough to be his daughter.

The fact is it is an honor to be in the White House and they were for eight years. They had no entitlement to be there again. The Senators knew Hillary well - and apparently the MSM spin that she initialy took a back seat and rose to be a popular Senate leader were just not true. They had a right to back anyone they wanted.

There IS no way to know that she is the most popular preson in the Democratic party

[Beacool]

116. I'm not going to argue with you, believe what you want.

:shrug:

[karynnj]

117. Fine with me

You have always ignored reality that Hillary Clinton knew exactly how the nomination was to be won. It was not until SuperTuesday that the media started speaking of how superdelegates could allow a candidate, who earned fewer of the regular delegates to win if they did well in the "popular vote". This is something that has NEVER been speculated in any election since the 1972 election where rules like this came into play.

The fact is this underweights all caucus states - especially because there were four that the Clinton count ignored completely because there was no popular vote. Not to mention, as I said, they threw in a huge number of votes from Puerto Rico. Something is fishy when those "Democrats" are counted and no Iowans are.

The fact is you need to honor the Democratic process. The fact is that Obama won the primary and he did it fair and square.

[Beacool]

119. Well, if we are going to talk about fishy.............

There were plenty of "fishy" things that went on in the caucuses. But, I guess that too is all water under the bridge since we are now a happy, united family. Right?

;)

[madinmaryland]

80. Nominating Bill Clinton would cause a lot of freeper heads to explode.

And there is already precedence for this happening.

Hmmm.

[Hekate]

97. As Bill himself has said, longevity does not run in his family...

Years ago in an interview he was asked about his post-presidential activities, which are many. The interviewer asked if he was going to pattern himself after Jimmy Carter and keep working away into his 80s.

Bill Clinton said he felt he had a lot to do and not much time to do it in, because the people in his family don't really live that long.

By now he's already had serious heart surgery, which has definitely extended his life. But when someone looks at their family history and sees the clock ticking, that's pretty powerful. And truthfully, he doesn't look all that healthy in photos these days.

Besides, he's still a horn-dog, and making freeper heads explode isn't a good enough reason to nominate someone for the SCOTUS.

Hekate

[craigmatic]

82. Bad idea. Hillary should run for POTUS in 2016

she's be the automatic favorite and she'd be the logical choice to complete the Obama legacy

[Beacool]

83. Hear, hear!!!!!!!!

:applause:

[StevieM]

89. As much as I love Hillary I don't get the impression that she wants to run again.

I would certainly vote for her, but it sounds like she is looking to retire, even if she does stay on as S.O.S. for Obama's second term.

Steve

[Beacool]

92. You may be right.

But who knows? People say a thing one day and then change their mind. Although I wouldn't blame her if she doesn't want to go through that ordeal again.

:hi:

[arcadian]

87. Can we please be done with political dynasties in this country?

It's wrecking the place.

[harkadog]

88. She failed the DC bar exam

That would be used against her. And she is too old.

[girl_interrupted]

90. So did Edith Sampson, 1st black woman elected judge in the United States

Edith S. Sampson the first African American delegate to the United Nations and first black woman elected judge in the United States

Edith S. Sampson was a pioneer in law, politics, human rights



Sampson's life is a story of firsts: the first black woman to be elected judge in the United States, the first black appointed as a delegate to the United Nations, the first black American representative to NATO and the first woman to earn a master of law degree from Loyola University in Chicago.



But when she graduated in 1925 and took the Illinois bar exam, she failed. She would later say it was "the best thing that could ever happen to me." It made her work harder, she said. Sampson enrolled in Loyola's graduate program while working as a probation officer. After she earned her degree in 1927, she was admitted to the bar.

She was admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1934.

http://articles.mcall.com/2002-02-26/features/3393280_1_sampson-social-work-black-woman

http://www.nathanielturner.com/edithsampson.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404708298.html

http://www.law.stanford.edu/library/womenslegalhistory/papers/SampsonE-Gordon97.pdf

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5221/is_2005/ai_n19142639/

John F Kennedy Jr failed the bar 3 times. Jerry Brown failed it once, as did Ed Koch. If you take the time to look it up, there are many notables who have failed the bar but obviously took Edith Sampson's advice.

[harkadog]

91. I am afraid I wouldn't want any of the people you mentioned

in the last two lines to be on the Supreme Court. It is called the Supreme Court for a reason. Not for failures.

[girl_interrupted]

93. Luckly it isn't up to you

Perhaps Alito & Scalia & Thomas are more to your liking? I would take ANY of the the people mentioned in the last 2 lines over any of those 3.

But what struck me most was the fact that you think one failure of the bar exam would not entitle a person to serve. That's almost laughable. If you only knew how many lawyers don't make it the 1st time.

I'm just glad you weren't around during the time Edith S. Sampson! She failed the bar! Oh Noes! I think she proved you can take a failure and turn it into success, if you work hard and don't quit.

As for age or should I say ageism...I didn't see any one urging Ted Kennedy to quit the Senate because of his age (77) before he passed.

Or Biden being too "old" to be VP at 68.

Some people are useless at 30, while people a lot older than that, still have so much to offer.

[harkadog]

96. Luckly it isn't up to you either.

[karynnj]

98. None of them were ever mentioned as possible Supreme Court nominees

The fact is that Hillary was considered a good student at Yale Law School and it is likely that she simply didn't think she needed to prepare as must as she should have. She obviously passed the Arkansas bar as she worked as a lawyer there.

I still think that the broader issues are that she was never a jurist and that there were some ethics issues - although they never hurt her politically, they could be a bigger issue in a Supreme Court nomination.

The fact is if I started a thread calling for John Kerry to nominated, few would consider it a good idea. Yet Kerry was a prosecutor and a lawyer - and passed the MA bar a month after graduation. He also has been an unusually clean politician. If you think Hillary deserved this because she almost got a nomination where she initially had all the advantages - he easily won a nomination and would have won had there been enough voting machines. In addition, if the reason for Clinton is that she helped Obama, Kerry helped far more - starting from giving Obama the speech. He is thoughtful and a very good person.

But, I really do not think he should be nominated - for two of the reasons I given for Clinton - age and lack of a judicial record.

[Beacool]

106. Means nothing.

She half heartedly took it while deciding if she should move to Arkansas. Bill had been asking her to move there to be with him for months.

Failing to pass the bar exam the first time out means zero as to a person's capacity to be a good attorney. Some of the best lawyers out there had to take the bar exam more than once. Conversely, some of the worst attorneys have passed it on their first try. It's never been a good measure of someone's future performance.

;)

[vaberella]

94. Interesting...I like this idea. n/t

[donheld]

95. George Clinton is getting a bit old for that nomination

:hide:

[Enrique]

102. McKinnon's reasons are all political reasons

apparently he's not aware of any other considerations that go into choosing a SC justice. Maybe that comes from working for Bush.

[WI_DEM]

103. Why not? Earl Warren was Governor of CA when he was appointed to the court

and turned out to be a great CJ. She has a broad range of experiences and many politicians have been appointed and many turned out to be fine.

[MadHound]

104. Oh hell no,

We don't need another corporatist hack in the court. We're still dealing with the shit he left us in the nineties, we certainly don't need him fucking things up even more.

[burning rain]

109. Her Democratic partisanship would be a liability in a Supreme Court nomination.

While I love the Clintons' combative style of politics, it would provide a ready-made narrative to use against Hillary in a judicial nomination: judges are at least not supposed to be political animals. The fact that she won confirmation as SoS handily does not mean she'd garner the same support as a Supreme Court nominee. As a prospective SoS, she had appeal to Republicans as one of the more hawkish Democrats. However, the GOP fears and loathes her domestic politics in general and feminism in particular, and would likely fight like dogs to keep her off the high court. Surely it would make more sense to choose someone younger, further to the left, and with a relatively low-key public record. More of a judicial bang with less of a fight.

Now, a presidential run in 2016 would play to her strengths. Incidentally, I don't buy the line that she can't pull independent and moderate Republican votes. She certainly showed unusual vote-getting power for a Democrat in Upstate New York.

[Beacool]

110. Exit polls in 2008 had her peeling away votes from McCain if she had been on the ticket.

Some Independents and Republicans who went for McCain would have voted for Hillary if she had been his opponent.

;)

[rvablue]

111. +1. She's been too involved in partisan politics to be a Supreme Court Justice. n/t

[TexasObserver]

118. While I think she'd be a good justice, I would not favor that.

She's over 60 years old, and we really need to see judges appointed who are no older than their early 50s. These positions are too precious. They must be given to people who can hold them 20 years or more.

Politically, it would be a distraction as the GOP re litigates their Clinton complaints.

As to her ability to be a decent jurist, I think she'd do fine. Earl Warren did a nice job. This notion that only federal judges should be promoted to the Supreme Court is a bad one. It's a political job, where policy is set. Look at the ideologues the GOP has appointed.

[polichick]

120. I could see this. Didn't she say in a recent interview that she doesn't want...

...to be SoS for two terms?

[TheKentuckian]

121. Too corporate friendly and too old.

Only the youngest and most economically liberal need apply in this day and age.

There are too many cons who look to be on the bench for many years and I'd say anyone with sense would desire and demand people first judges to the bench.