It is a clear sign that primary season has gone on too long when you read articles like this speculating – and thats what it is, speculation – that Obama would offer Sen. Clinton a Supreme Court nomination.
That isn’t going to happen. While I think that on balance she would probably make a good justice, there is no way she would be confirmed. It would make the Bork and Thomas hearings seem like child’s play. The author of the piece is in certifiable la-la land saying that because she is a senator, Clinton would have easy confirmation. The religious far right would suicide bomb the Senate before they would see Sen. Clinton on the Supreme Court. Obama could win the general election with 70% of the vote and it wouldn’t happen.
The chances of Sen Clinton being on the Supreme Court are exactly the same as Jessica Alba changing her mind, divorcing, and showing up at my front door Thursday night.
I’ll let Lloyd from Dumb and Dumber take it from here:
Oliver:
I disagree with your assessment, on two counts.
By comparison with the majority of others who currently sit on the Court, she might accurately be described relatively as a “good justice.” But the way she has run her campaign pretty clearly points to a very troubling deficiency in good judgment. Of course she’d be okay on preserving abortion rights, but she sure ain’t no Thurgood Marshall or William Brennan.
That said, if whatever confluence of events served to make her a nominee, she would only need a majority of votes in the Senate for confirmation. And the Democrats will have that majority, possibly even a filibuster-proof majority. But even if there are less than 60 Dems, I would question the likelihood of a GOP filibuster against her. Arlen Specter wouldn’t vote to sustain a filibuster. I doubt Chuck Grassley would either. Nor Richard Lugar nor Olympia Snowe.
I can think of a great many other much better alternatives, and I hope her chances are as unlikely as you suspect. I doubt she’d be nominated, but it wouldn’t be because of threats from hysterical right wingers. Besides, that would be an argument in her favor anyway.
One positive point: we’d all get to watch the confirmation fight! Hooboy.
I don’t think we need ANOTHER SCOTUS judge who doesn’t think certain rules and laws actually “count.”
I don’t think she’d have much Senate opposition either. Let the cry babies on the lunatic fringe of the GOP wail away. I generally prefer someone who has more judicial experience, but it’s probably not a bad idea to get away from the professional judge mold that has taken over in the last few decades. Besides, this might be just the thing to liberate Clinton from her self-imposed political shackles.
I heard this rumor a couple of months ago. There were substantive issues with Bork’s conception of constitutional interpretation and whether Thomas had committed sexual harrassment. I’m sure there was personal animosity involved, as well. Substantively, I don’t think there would be as much objection to Clinton, aside from the obvious lack of judicial experience. But Pistol Pete makes an interesting poing about bringing in outsiders. I can’t remember who, but someone wrote an interesting piece on the Warren court and noted that his ability to forge consensu opinions was a result of the members having served in nonjudicial capacities before joining the Court. Warren was governor of California, Hugo Black was senator from Alabama (and yes, I know he was in the Klan).
Personal attacks re Clinton would still be a threat.
SCOTUS? Not so much- girlfriend’s done destroyed all the political goodwill she amassed over the past two decades.
“I don’t think we need ANOTHER SCOTUS judge who doesn’t think certain rules and laws actually “count.””
August, can you explain what you mean by that? At first blush, I take that as a huge and unfair smear against Clinton.
Oliver, can you expand on your post. The notion of a bloody fight with the fundies over this sounds really fun for us bystanders.
I think August is referring to FLA and Mi delegations being sat despite the rules she agreed to.
I think Senator Clinton could be confirmed by the Senate if she were appointed to the Supreme Court by a President Obama. The question I would have is would a President Obama want to use his own political capital to benefit a former rival who has again and again stepped over the line in her campaign to win the nomination? I just don’t see a President Obama being quite that charitable to someone who said that he was not qualified to be president.
Agreed, especially when I’m sure that Obama could find several other jurists who would make better SCOTUS judges than Mrs. Clinton.
That said, she should realize that for as much bridge rebuilding she needs to do, there is little doubt in my mind that her campaign has placed her in a prime position to influence policy in the next Democratic administration–if not in Obama’s cabinet, in a position of power within the Senate.
She wouldn’t take it anyway. It would get in the way of running again in 2012.
her campaign has placed her in a prime position to influence policy in the next Democratic administration–if not in Obama’s cabinet, in a position of power within the Senate.
Agree.
Duros62: How could she possibly run for President in 2012 if Obama is President? There would be zero support for this from all but her most ardent supporters.
The last thing the Supreme Court needs is another person who believes that big business can do no wrong.
She can run in 2012, but she’d lose badly. A lot of Obama supporters will blame her for his loss if it happens. A lot of people who wouldn’t care about that won’t be willing to take a roll of the dice on a female candidate after the black candidate lost the previous election. Combined, that will doom her chances. Hell, either one by itself probably could. It will be a white man for sure, probably a western or southern one if Obama loses.
Soullite goes a bit off-topic, but I like his analysis of what happens if Hill decides to go again in 2012. If she’s holding out for that option, as I thought before, she hasn’t carried it to soullite’s pretty convincing conclusions. But that’s no consolation for her mucking it up for Obama now.
I agree that there is just no way she can run in 2012. Democrats seem to hate repeat candidates, and as soullite suggests her running in 2012 will alienate everyone.
Regarding FL and MI, five states broke the rules. Only two are being punished. The current punishments for those two that broke the rules are explicitly NOT the punishments handed out by the written rules. Since we currently have a basically tied game where the winner will be decided by the hearts and minds of the superdelegates, it is fair for either Obama or Clinton to made any arguments they choose regarding popular vote vs. pledged delegates.
This is called politics. Apparently it is an ugly business. Who knew?
But it should have nothing to do with whether Clinton would be guided by the law or not when should she sit on the court. And I would have expected August, et. al., to recognize that.
Remember 7/20/93!
I missed the news on the other three states that broke the rules. Which ones, and how, and why were they not punished?
My issue with Clinton’s recent attempts to portray herself as the champion of those disenfranchised states is that she signed off on their disenfranchisement in the first place…but then went ahead and (a) campaigned and (b) kept herself on the ballot. Almost by definition, she had cake and ate it, too.
As for popular vs. delegate votes, Obama leads in the popular vote. Hillary’s claim that she has more of the popular vote utilizes her calculus that, ironically, disenfranchises the caucus states that didn’t give her the edge.
How could she possibly run for President in 2012 if Obama is President? There would be zero support for this from all but her most ardent supporters.
Okay, 2016 then. Just because she may lose this time doesn’t mean she doesn’t still yearn for it.
To clear up any confusion: I don’t want Hillary Clinton appointed to the Supreme Court. I don’t want Hillary Clinton even appointed to the federal bench on any court.
SpiderJ,
Beats me on all of this, I just read the blogs, and wait for Oliver to put up pictures of
JessicaKim.The five states that broke the rules.
Here is Markos Molitsas in January, BEFORE Super Tuesday:
Daily Kos: State of the NationWhat’s more, Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan’s ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won’t last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates….So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.
The thing is if/when Obama wins he’ll be in a position to appoint several well qualified justices with a Democratic majority in the Senate. In all likelihood he’ll be able to appoint someone more progressive with more experience than Clinton without the fight and noise and they’ll breeze through nomination (like Alito/Roberts did for Bush).
Accomplishing a progressive goal without all the noise is sort of the hallmark of what Obama is pushing.
OMG Kos flipflopped- let’s declare Clinton the winner by fiat!!!!!1!
The thing is if/when Obama wins he’ll be in a position to appoint several well qualified justices
Aren’t we assuming that seats on the bench will open up during his term? I know 8 years is a long time, but who is on the way out?
Who isn’t? They’re all getting pretty long in the tooth. Stewart is 88. Ginsberg is 75. Scalia is 72 (though some say his lineage goes back 600 years before that to Transylvania where he was known as Vafanculo the Impaler. Kennedy is 72, Souter is 70, Breyer is 69.
In eight years, I could see all of these being gone, with the exception of Vafanculo the Impaler, of course.
OMG Kos flipflopped- let’s declare Clinton the winner by fiat!!!!!1!
More like, Kos was for staying on the ballot, before he was against it. And also more like, removing your name from the ballot was considered at the time to be a pander, and enlightened liberals were able to give enlightened liberal support to politicians that refused that pander.
But some of us have forgotten that.
Who isn’t? They’re all getting pretty long in the tooth. Stewart is 88. Ginsberg is 75. Scalia is 72 (though some say his lineage goes back 600 years before that to Transylvania where he was known as Vafanculo the Impaler. Kennedy is 72, Souter is 70, Breyer is 69.
I see your point. Didn’t know the ages of the Court.
Seems like some of us forgot that the person who will win the nomination is the one who wins the majority of the electoral votes, not the one that wins the “hard working white person” vote or the “non-caucus” vote or the “large state only” vote (except if it’s Illinois).
One of the many Bush tragedies (the she seemed to have brought on herself,) is Sandra Day O’Connor.
Apparently helped steal the election in part so she could retire, perhaps realized her mistake (”the hiring of John Ashcroft, the politicized response to the affirmative action case, the lawless approach to the war on terror, and the accelerating disaster of the war in Iraq all appalled O’Connor.”) and very much wanted to stay on to the next term so that someone else could appoint her replacement, her husband gets very ill with Alzheimers, she then retires to take care of him, her replacement turns out to be a judge who disagrees with many of the positions she supported and will vote to reverse him, and then her husband dies. That’s a shit load of karma.
I think this is the story Jeffrey Toobin tells in his book, “The Nine.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/books/21book.html?fta=y
Jeez, I actually do feel very sorry for her.
I see your point. Didn’t know the ages of the Court.
It’s why for more than any other reason, this election is an election about the Supreme Court. And Obama supporter that refuses to vote for Clinton or Clinton supporter refusing to vote for Obama is just a dumb ignorant jackass.
An[y] Obama supporter that refuses to vote for Clinton or Clinton supporter refusing to vote for Obama is just a dumb ignorant jackass.
Can’t argue with that.