Posted on 05/21/2008 5:38:17 AM PDT by kellynla
As the primary season nears a merciful end, the Clinton-Obama conflict is giving way to Obama-Clinton conjecture. Many in the Democratic Party support a so-called dream ticket of both, with Barack Obama at the top. They believe Hillary Clinton has earned the No. 2 spot through her feisty, never-say-die campaign, and they worry that her supporters will stay home in November if she isn't part of the ticket.
Opponents counter that in terms of the electoral vote, Clinton might not help carry any states that wouldn't already go for Obama. Moreover, the possibility of both Clintons ganging up on a President Obama could make life more difficult for him than anything the Republicans could ever put together.
But there is another way to foster party unity without forcing a political marriage.
It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy. Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one.
Obama and Clinton have wound up agreeing on nearly every major issue during the campaign; at the end of the day, they share many orthodoxies. Unless the Supreme Court were to get mired in minuscule details of what constitutes universal health care, Obama could assume that he'd be pleased with most Clinton votes, certainly on major issues such as abortion.
Obama could also appreciate Clinton's undeniably keen mind. Even Clinton detractors have noted her remarkable mental skills; she would be equal to any legal or intellectual challenge she would face as a justice. The fact that she hasn't served on a bench before would be inconsequential, considering her experience in law and in government.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Leaving aside who she is, she’s not qualified. I can’t believe that she would get confirmed.
“The fact that she hasn’t served on a bench before would be inconsequential....”
this is how the Post thinks...they’re a dangerous voice.
For the Washington Post a Supreme Court seat is nothing more than a political favor. These papers are dying and anyone can see they serve the public badly.
Let President Bush nominate Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter, both lawyers, and see how the Post would scream about their lack of bench experience!
I don't think Hillary Clinton would accept an appointment anyway - it's too low profile for her.
If Hillary were to be named to the Supreme Court, that day would be a truly black mark on the principles on which this country was founded.
She has mocked the law ever since she graduated, and has used it to her own advantage, and the he11 with her enemies.
The For Sale sign would go up in the lobby of the Supreme Court two day after her appointment.
I doubt McCain would appoint her. Maybe, but I doubt it.
Unfortunately, the Constitution does not set forth any qualifications for service as a Justice. The President may nominate anyone to serve.
“this is how the Post thinks...”
Cheerleaders for mindless liberal elitism.
Ann Coulter clerked for Rehnquist. That’s something. Hillary’s experiences consists of defending communists and stealing law firm records.
I though Coulter was a circuit court clerk, but not supreme court. Laura Ingraham clerked for the Supremes.
I see nothing unfortunate about that. Quite the opposite, actually.
You’re right—but what I meant to say, and perhaps I should have been more clear—is that she would get slammed in the Senate. She’s Harriet Miers, but worse. When was the last time she practiced law? The 70s?
As a practical matter, in order to be a Supreme Court Justice, you’ve got to have one of a few things on your resume: a distinguished judge; a faculty member/Dean at a well-respected law school; US Supreme Court clerk (not enough standing alone); or distinguished service in the AG or SG office.
There are a few exceptions to this, but those people had something extra that made up for the shortcoming—Lewis Powell was president of the ABA and Southern when the Court needed a Southern justice—he was also extremely well respected in Richmond. Thurgood Marshall won the civil rights cases in the 60s; Thomas replaced a retiring Thurgood Marshall.
Clinton’s best bet would be for Ginsburg to resign, which would “require” a female justice to be appointed in her place. But even so, Clinton’s shortcomings—no judicial experience, no distinguished faculty membership, no distinguished law career (hasn’t even practiced in thirty years) will blow up a Clinton nomination.
“Unfortunate” for your arguement.
Note to WaPo writers:
The only “supreme” experience Hillary’s “undeniably keen mind” has accumulated is benching Bill’s bimbos in the presidential politics game because without bubba her entire life would have been “inconsequential”!
Previous poster is correct concerning Hillary’s baggage with the addendum that it has completely clogged the system because, like that famous pink bunny, it just keeps on coming around and around on the carousel and is never claimed.
Oh, I agree with you (and with the “spirit” of the earlier post.)
A question would be, does she want a position on the SCOTUS or fight Reed to be the Senate Majority leader with an eye towards 2012 or 16
This conversation makes me wonder: who was the last man to be appointed to the Supreme Court out of the Senate?
Do you really believe that "qualifications" would stand in the way of a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress, when political expediency demanded otherwise?
With Obama in the White House, a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, and a fillibuster-proof Democrat majority in the Senate??? Think again.
Attention: Bob Barr!
Attention: Those who refuse to support McCain!
I don't think it would be a politically savvy move. For that reason, I don't believe she could get the 60 votes.
Yes. Upon further reflection, if she were nominated, I don't even think she'd get a hearing.
None in the 1900’s that I can recall. Then again, she can tread more new feminist ground!
Aside from conservatives, who would object to Hillary's appointment?
Hillary doesn’t want to be on the Supreme Court. At least, not yet. Other women have done that. She still wants to be president. If, after 2012, she still hasn’t been elected president, the Supreme Court might be attractive to her.
Be afraid.
I think most everyone, simply because she is so totally unqualified and it's such an obviously political appointment.
Conservatives objected to Harriet Miers (who is more qualified than Clinton), in large part because her nomination was also transparently political and there were scores of better candidates. I think a Clinton nomination would be the democrat version of Harriet Miers.
Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse.
Let’s hope that Doug from Upland and his supporters will get Her Thighness into court this summer and get her convicted as a felon. That woulde prevent her from ever getting on the high court.
Wasn’t Abe Fortas’ first job on the bench the U.S. Supreme Court?
Yes, and I suppose Fortas is a pretty good person to discuss here because he only got the job because he got LBJ elected to the Senate, so it was also a pretty obvious political appointment.
One difference, though, is that Fortas was a highly regarded lawyer who had ample experience in front of the court--in fact, he argued the Gideon case, which resulted in indigent defendants receiving free trial counsel.
A footnote to also be considered is that he resigned due to a political scandal--that doesn't bode well for future candidates who have ample political ties.
Hillary ain’t going to stay home baking cookies nor is she going to sit around in some stuffy chamber wearing a stupid robe all day.
If the Republicans wouldn’t filibuster a Hillary nomination to defeat, they would kill their chances of taking back Congress.
Feisty, hardly, stubborn, broke, angry and bitter clinging to whatever new definition of scoring she can to win the democrat nomination. She wants this in a bad sick way.
Supreme Court would bore her to tears unless she can find devious ways to overrule the Constitution, the president, and rule from the bench.But, as unqualified as she is for the office of the presidency, she's just as pathetically unqualified to serve on any judicial bench.
What does a political party do with a drunk on power old hag feminist who is maniacally ambitiously driven without the skills or resume, other than being married to a former impeached president to back her up, to appease her. To soothe her raging heartless self? Jewelry, flowers, cruise, fur coat, er ah, faux fur?
Oh, this is so juicy much like a soap opera queenTaming the Shrew...Sore Loser Rejected Presidential Candidate.
Hillary Clinton also has more "lost baggage" than Delta Airlines!
In any event, it will never happen...hopefully.
I recall a lot of “I do not recalls” during her past testimony.
Then there were those Rose Law Firm files that she couldn't recall leaving on the coffee table in the White House family quarters.
Besides, Supreme Court is small potatoes compared to executive branch. Can't even sell pardons.
This is exactly why we need to fight the “ Let the Dems win and when they screw it up we will take it back “ idiots.
The Supreme Court is forever,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.