Hillary Clinton: Supreme Court Justice?
 

I'm thinking about it....

In the meantime, here is what some others have to say about it:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/051 :

It sounds superb to us. Freed of the constraints of "triangulating" political considerations that have hobbled and severely compromised her progressive values, a seat on the Supreme Court would be an ideal way for Clinton to help steer our Constitution back to its original moorings. Without having to worry about voting based on future campaign strategy, she would be liberated to impact America in a profoundly positive way.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1
If Obama were to promise Clinton the first court vacancy, her supporters would actually have a stronger incentive to support him for president than they would if she were going to be vice president. Given the Supreme Court's delicate liberal-conservative balance, she would play a major role in charting the country's future; there is no guarantee that a Clinton vice presidency would achieve such importance.

What. The. Hell.

PLEASE JUST SAY NO!

It'll never happen, but oh, if it did, I would be PARKED in front of C-SPAN to watch those Senate hearings! That would be seriously entertaining. :)

I posted this in another thread, I believe, but I don't think there's any way Clinton gets on the Court. Excuse me if this gets a bit longwinded, but I'm a bit of a Supreme Court nerd.

It's true there have been cases of SCOTUS justices being named with no judicial experience, but that hasn't happened in quite a long time; the last ones were Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist, I believe, when they were appointed in the early 70s. The trend seems to be towards judges with some federal judicial experience, or some combination of judicial experience and SC advocacy (like in the case of Roberts). A high-profile academic position would probably suffice in place of judicial experience. However, Hilary lacks that and has never argued before the Court,

I realize this list is from 2007, but the SCOTUS blog had an interesting post about potential nominees under a Democrat's administration:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-dem...so-short-list/

The list is a bit outdated in a few ways; for example, I doubt Patrick would get support even though he's close to Obama, especially after the allegations of ethical violations in his time as Governor. However, I think that Dean Kagan, Sotomayor, Garland, or even someone like Cass Sunstein are much more likely to be successful candidates than Clinton.

Plus, I could completely see her confirmation hearings as being a revenge for the Bork debacle.

The argument by the first author on Clinton's potential impact on the Court is overstated and a bit misinformed, to say the least. The next two Justices to retire would be some combination of Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter. If Stevens or Ginsburg were to leave, the Court would lose its two most liberal members, and it's not like Souter is the poster child of the conservative branch. I don't see how she could help a "Court that has veered dangerously to the right," in the words of the first link. The only way she could have that type of impact would be if she were to replace Scalia or Thomas, and I don't see either of them leaving in the near future.

I understand the political reasons behind offering her a position; however, there are a lot of more qualified potential nominees out there for Obama if he wins.

Foreshadowing? ;)

Haha, whoops. I've had a long last couple of days (including spending last night and early this morning taking my dog to the vet hospital), you'll have to bear with me.

Aw, hope you're doggie's ok.

Exactly.

Wow.

I have this nagging suspicion that Hillary Clinton wouldn't exactly be as huge a proponent of originalism as Senusret's cut/paste implies.

That is, of course, unless the article's author thinks that a bloated dormant commerce clause doctrine coupled with a view which has rendered the 10th Amendment almost irrelevant (and other such things) to be the "original" meaning of the Constitution.

I suspect your latter point is the accurate one.

This makes perfect sense, but wouldn't she have a few years to acquire high-level academic experience (or even take up a doorstep advocacy position) to complete the historical circuit, as it were?

I just read the two stories in the initial post to suggest that she be offered the job based on her current experience. The author of the Post piece says that her experience as an attorney and Senator should be enough, but I think it's highly unlikely that such a candidate would be confirmed.

If she were to take a job at Yale/Harvard/Chicago, etc., get appointed to a federal circuit, or start taking on SCOTUS cases, then it would definitely be a different story. Maybe she could do something similar to Laurence Tribe, taking an academic position while also making herself available to argue certain cases. It might be easier for her to go the academic/advodacy route, rather than go through an extra confirmation hearing.

Does anyone know if she has any appellate advocacy experience? I'm pretty sure she's never argued before the Supreme Court, but I didn't know if she regularly argued in federal court when she was practicing law previously.

I don't think she's any less qualified than good ol' Harriet Miers. ;)

Or any more qualified.;)

Yeah well - she's more qualified than me too, doesn't necessarily mean she should be on the Supreme Court. :D