Fork Hillary 6: The Supreme Unforking

Great Debates
1

It’s been speculated in the past and probably in recent threads, but someone somewhere is starting rumours of Hilary being nominated for the Supreme Court. Just rumours, yes, but much less threadbare and unreasonable than the myriad Palinesque stories that keep making it past the Board’s credulity filters.

Should she be nominated? On the one hand, it seems pretty quid pro quo. Contrary to the post-primary/election fears, she’s done nothing (that I know of) to undermine Obama. It’s almost as if she gave up all Presidential ambition to concentrate on being Secretary of State (not that they are mutually exclusive). Kind of surprising to me. Even if she was honest in her approach to the SoS role, the mere appearance of impropriety is a bit unnerving.

Her legal training and background is interesting. While she’s never sat on a bench, and hasn’t practised in years, I don’t doubt that she has a supreme familiarity with the court’s rationales and analysis. Is prior judicial experience necessary for the SCotUS? A major legal and analytical background and aptitude is necessary, and an appellate record is key to understanding a nominee, but don’t we have that in her case?

Should she be confirmed (if nominated, of course)? Though I think I’m on record on the boards as despising the woman (as far back as her announcing her candidacy for the NY Senate seat), I say yes.

There is little mystery how she would vote on major issues—no surprises there. The court balance won’t change in the short term, but as a consummate politician her influence on a sharply right-turning court would serve to temper the judicial activism of the right—I dare say much more so than a sharper yet less politically astute appellate judge. With apologies to a Justice I’m overlooking, there is no outstanding or remarkable supporter of civil liberties, no leader of the liberal wing of the Court. (Side note: I do recognize and validate that a conservative Justice could be said to stand for civil liberties as well, but that schism in viewpoints is beyond the initial scope of the OP).

Of course, nominating her would cause a firestorm among the teabaggers, which could be just the break the McCain camp was waiting for…

[ETA: I thought this was the 4th in the series, but a second search turned up a 4 and 5. If a Mod would change as appropriate.]

2

She’s already gotten her quid pro quo: Secretary of State is a pretty choice position. The rumors you’re hearing are being spread for the sole purpose of giving the right conniption fits.

3

I can’t see why she’d be nominated - as far as a I know, she’s an effective SecState at a time when Obama clearly needs one. It keeps her face and name in the media and if she can be linked to eventual successes in Iraq and Afghanistan (or at least nothing that be likened to a Vietnam-style defeat), she has a decent shot at her own presidential run in 2016.

As a side note, I’m curious if the next Dem president will consider nominating Obama.

4

bolding mine

I think it would be perhaps the greatest political maneuver of our lifetimes for President Obama to nominate Sarah Palin for the SCOTUS.

But Hillary, well, I dunno. I think she’d actually get confirmed, in part because the Cons would love to get her off the election trail. Having a job-for-life would prolly do that, and then they could go back to worrying about how a black man is going to destroy the country with his own unique brand of socialist Marxism while forcing us to bow our heads and pay taxes equal to double our income and pray to Mecca 5 times a day. I mean, ffs, he’s black, people! Look at him!

It’s much easier to convince the majority of America that someone who looks different than they do is evil, than to convince them that someone who looks like their Mom is evil. Cons would see the wisdom in giving Mom a job where she would be out of the way for the most part, so I think Hillary would be confirmed.

Plus, AFAIK, legally she has a great mind and other than her advocacy, I can’t for the life of me think of anything that would raise a big enough red flag to wave, and I don’t think that would be enough to derail her nomination. Who in their right mind (okay, Bachmann (R-Batshit)) would say “she’s unfit for the job because she cares about the poor”?

ETA: I don’t seriously think she’ll be nominated. I think it’s more a case of putting this rumor out there so that whoever is nominated will seem to be a much less controversial choice than what might have been.

5

Now that’s comedy.

I think there are plenty out there that honestly believe the myth that their side is made up of “originalists” and “textualists” and don’t engage in judicial activism of any sort. That Hillary would be a liberal activist Justice would be sufficient in their minds to vote against her.

6

No. It seems like she and Obama have a good working relationship, and it wouldn’t make sense to eliminate that AND set off a brawl surrounding her confirmation hearings. You could argue she’s qualified based on her law career, however distant it is, plus eight years in the Senate and a year as Secretary of State. But SoS is not a job you take as a stepping stone. It’s been a long time since a Secretary of State became president or took an arguably higher position.

Like someone else said, if there was any quid pro quo, her side of it was her current job.

Why? She has no incentive to do a bad job: she’d be damaging her own standing and career and hurting her boss. Obama may have brought her onboard to prevent her from becoming a critic in the Senate, at least in part, but I don’t think there is any question that having gotten this job, she’s going to do the best she can.

It’s become sort of a de facto requirement in recent years. I think at least one of Obama’s potential nominees (Kagan) has never been a judge.

She’s not on the trail now. In fact the right seems to have forgotten about her entirely.

7

Eh, it would just turn the confirmation process into more of a circus, as a far greater chunk of the public would tune in to watch a Hillary nomination then would turn in to watch basically any other likely nominee.

And there isn’t really an upside for Obama. He’ll have to get a new SoS confirmed, which will be a pain. And while I suspect basically anyone he nominates will get through the current 59 Dem Senate, nominating an extremely high-profile Democrat like Hillary would throw alot of unknowns into the game, which isn’t a good idea when the deck already heavily favors Obama.

8

They haven’t forgotten. She’s the little annoying pain in the back of their brains, the worry that they haven’t been able to resolve, because she’s still a potential threat to them.

As I said, I think if she had a job-for-life position, the cons would actually sigh with relief, because she would be effectively removed from ever running for office again.

But I also think that she won’t be nominated, that this is just a red herring thrown to the crowd so that the actual nominee will appear less controversial. “Sure, he’s a gay Asian with physical handicaps and a lisp who supported ‘Anarchy Fridays’ when he was a grad student at Liberal University, but at least he’s not Hillary Clinton!”

9

Don’t hold back, dude. Open yourself.

10

:confused:

huh?

11

I think they’d be highly agitated by the idea of Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court for 15 to 20 years. She is not going to run for president in 2012 and it’s possible she’ll be out of government altogether. In 2016 she’d might be too old. Speaking of which, at 62 Clinton would also be on the old side for a recent Supreme Court nominee. Mid-50s seems to be more normal. Presidents want somebody who will be on the court for as long as possible. Clarence Thomas has been on the court for 20 years and he’s actually younger than Clinton.

12

Marley, I’m not interested in wasting time arguing the same point from 2 different sides.

I DO NOT THINK HILLARY CLINTON WILL BE NOMINATED FOR SCOTUS, EITHER NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, FOR LOTS AND LOTS OF REASONS.

k?

13

The right-wing pundits will have to find something else to scream about-apparently, she’s not on the list.

14

The last justice with no judicial experience was William Rehnquist. So it’s been almost 40 years since a president appointed someone who had never been a judge. Clarence Thomas had only been a judge for a year when he was nominated, though.

15

As much as I disagree with many of them, his opinions are masterworks of rhetoric and analysis.

16

I don’t think she’ll be nominated, for reasons stated. But if she were, I think that she would be confirmed. There would be plenty of screaming and histrionics from the Right, but they would not really try to block her for one simple reason: her elevation to SCOTUS would be the greatest gift to the Republican election campaign that Obama could give them. Talk about energizing your base!

17

Some education, if it’s not too much trouble, please. When was the last time a Supreme Court nomination was made of a candidate whose history of government service was predominantly as a partisan elected official?

It’s my understanding that municipal and superior court judgeships, while elective, are non-partisan.

Be that as it may, if President Obama really wants to hear the dulcet tones of Republican cranial explosion, he’ll float a rumor that he’s thinking of nominating Bill.

:smiley:

18

You could stand on your porch and listen, and America would sound like a distant popcorn popper popping, with a slight tinge of liquidy spatter…

19

Earl Warren, I should think. I’ve heard on TV that he also fit in a career as a sleazy male stripper.

20

Earl Warren wasn’t a male stripper!