That should do it. By that time most of the sheeple will have completely forgot that he was impeached.
Posted on 02/02/2004 1:46:35 PM PST by HAL9000
A recent post on FreeRepublic suggested the novel theory that Conservatives would be better off if George W. Bush lost the election and a Democrat became president.One response objected to that theory, claiming that if the Democrats win, the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would be Bill Clinton.
On the surface, that sounds like a real problem. Chief Justice Rehnquist turns 80 this year, and it's likely that the winner of the 2004 presidential election will nominate his replacement.
But there is a problem with the Chief Justice Bill Clinton theory: Clinton's law license in Arkansas is suspended until 2006, and shortly after his suspension, he resigned his bar admission to the U.S. Supreme Court. He can't apply for readmission to the SCOTUS bar until at least 2009.
Clinton would not want the nomination because it would damage his legacy by resurrecting the scandals that led to his suspended law license, and the suspension would be an insurmountable problem in confirmation hearings. He's not going to sit through hearings and be grilled under oath about that. It's more likely he would take a position at the United Nations. Therefore, I'm confident that the Democrats will never nominate Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court.
But, there is a real danger that a Democratic president would nominate Hillary Clinton as Chief Justice. She would be the #1 top candidate for the post among the party rank and file. There will be a huge outcry for her nomination among Democrats - and unlike her husband, there is no record of her ever being impeached or disciplined for misconduct as an attorney.
The poster of the article linked above assures us that possiblity is "even less likely to happen than Slick Willie getting a seat on the big bench. ... Hillary Clinton will neither be nominated to the Supreme Court nor confirmed. It is not even an issue." He believes that an impeached, virtually disbarred ex-President has a better chance for SCOTUS nomination and Senate approval than his liberal icon Senator/wife. (What is he smoking?)
Another poster said that Hillary could not get nominated because she has never served as a judge before. But history proves that argument wrong. 43 of the 108 Supreme Court justices, including eight of the 18 chief justices, had no prior judicial experience. William Rehnquist had never served as a judge before his Supreme Court appointment in 1972.
Other posters opined that Hillary would rather be President than Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I doubt it. There is a key difference between the Clintons: Bill loves campaigning, Hillary loves governing. If she became Chief Justice, she could dispense with the aspects of politics she doesn't enjoy. No more campaigning, no more fundraising, no more debates - just sitting and interpreting our laws and Constitution as she sees fit - for life! She would have more power for a longer period of time as Chief Justice instead of President.
Furthermore, if a Democrat wins the presidential election in 2004, it would disrupt her commonly accepted timetable of running for president in 2008. That would make the Supreme Court an even more attractive option to her. Her odds of winning Senate confirmation to SCOTUS in the near future are better than winning a presidential election in 2012 (or 2008).
If a Democrat wins, I predict that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be nominated to be next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it will be nearly impossible to stop her confirmation in the Senate - even if Republicans control the chamber.
A Google search shows that there has been virtually no discussion of the dangers of a Chief Justice Hillary Clinton. This thread is intended to raise awareness of the issue - and to urge Conservatives to reject foolish theories that we would be better off with a Democratic president.
But the political reality is that a lawyer who was impeached, had his law license suspended and resigned from the bar of the Supreme Court will never be nominated as a Supreme Court justice. Those are Bill's problems, not Hillary's.
Your theory can only hold water, if one assumes that the Republicans in the Senate have also distanced themselves from traditional values. We might lose some Senate seats--particularly if the candidates try to run on the President's shrinking coat-tails, but we should still have enough to block such a nomination--keep it from ever coming to a vote. The Democrats have certainly illustrated how you do that.
However, it is still early. If you can persuade the President to acknowledge the error of some of his recent actions (as did Davy Crockett, long ago, in the events recounted in Sockdolager!) he can still win back many of our votes. If he keeps following Karl Rove away from the duties imposed by his oath of office, we simply cannot ethically do so. Sorry, but I took an oath to support the Constitution, and I have always interpreted that as imposing a duty on me, to anlayze candidates from the perspective of how seriously they take their own oaths. Both my oath, and their oaths, were before Almighty God, and had nothing to do with party affiliation. We cannot use that as an excuse to avoid the consequences of them.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
It is correct in saying Clinton's law license has been suspended, however, there is no requirement that a justice on the supreme court be a lawyer. He/She may be of any vocation.
I don't think that is the writer's point. He/she makes more of the issue that Billy Jeff would have to deal with the whole impeachment/license suspension/disbarment issue in very public hearings, and would still not have a chance to be confirmed. The Pubbies could righteously point to these issues as grounds for rejecting his nomination, so why put himself through the publim humiliation?
Well, that's interesting.
Reminds me of the claim that Hillary will have to face the tough questioning of the New York media in her Senate run.
Personally I think the media will tear apart anyone who obstructs Hillary's nomination.
With that in mine, I think Hillary might not only get the Chief Justice positition for life, but have the pleasure of seeing Senators who opposed her voted out of office.
Oh the pleasures we'll get from a Democrat president- especially one who has to make a deal with Hillary to win.
Of a lot of the idiots on this forums have their way, then Yes.
It's "damn the appointments and everything else, full speed ahead" in their minds.
I remember saying on a thread after the election that libertarians would be abandoning the Republicans. Funny, no one took that idea seriously either.
:-)
That should do it. By that time most of the sheeple will have completely forgot that he was impeached.
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.