The Next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States - Hillary Clinton?

vanity post | February 2, 2004 | HAL9000

[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.

[deport]

Well, that's the secret: the less I post the better I look!

---

Post away and quit that looking in the mirror..........

[CA Conservative]

Just to get the law license back would not necessarily involve a public hearing.

I didn't say anything about the law license - he would have to go through a public confirmation hearing if nominated to SCOTUS.

As for a debate, IF the democrats ever regain the majority there would be no debate.

Even if the Pubbies were in the minority, you could count on the mother of all filibusters for a Billy Jeff nomination.

Besides I thought Bill Clinton wanted the UN presidency.

You are probably right about that - which is part of the point the writer was making. BJ is not who we should worry about...

[Lancey Howard]

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.

C'mon.
Even if Democrats controlled the chamber they would need 60 votes for this to happen.
Hillary on the Spreme Court is never, ever gonna happen.

[Gorjus]

Let's see, if I'm 'delusional', then you're idiotic.

There, does that about reach the level of discussion you wanted? Go back and reread my post if you're interested in actually discussing something instead of just calling people names. Most of what you said bears no relationship to what I wrote. Specifically, I did not ever say that the Supreme Court is there to decide what 'We, the People' want. Just the opposite, in fact.

[HAL9000]

"Hillary on the Spreme Court is never, ever gonna happen."

I'm going through the FR archives, reading messages from 1999 about whether she would run for Senate. Here are some actual quotes (with screen names omitted) -

"She won't run."

"Doubtful scenario."

"she isn't going to run for any elective office."

"She's not going to accept anything that will downgrade her position from where she is now. Her ego will not allow her to be the "junior" senator, or the VP nominee while watching Tipper ascend to potential First Lady."

"Hillary is not running anywhere but to Brazil."

"I can't imagine Hillary has the nerve to try and go after power on her own."

"Not gonna happen. To much dirt is going to come out before then."

etc., etc.

There must be thousands of similar messages in the archives - from people who consistently underestimate Hillary's relentless quest for absolute power.

[Lancey Howard]

There must be thousands of similar messages in the archives - from people who consistently underestimate Hillary's relentless quest for absolute power.

I am not one of them.
However, there is not a doubt in my mind that she would need 60 Senate votes for confirmation to the Supreme Court. I maintain that that will never happen, regardless of how much she may want to be confirmed. Those files of hers are growing staler and staler.

[HAL9000]

However, there is not a doubt in my mind that she would need 60 Senate votes for confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Your math is as reliable as your political judgement. It would take 67 votes to reach the two-thirds majority of 100 senators required for Supreme Court confirmation.

[HAL9000]

(But wait - Hillary would abstain from voting for herself - and if enough other Senators failed to vote - she could be approved with fewer than 67 votes.)

[Lancey Howard]

Huh. I thought it worked the same way for Supes as for District Court judges (like in the cases of Estrada and Pickering).

By the way, I'll put my "political judgment" up against yours any day if you think Hillary would get 67 votes, let alone 60.

Regards,
LH

[HAL9000]

I bet you were thinking of the number of votes normally required for cloture on a Senate fillibuster - usually 60 votes for three-fifths of 100 Senators. Okay.

[Salvation]

2004: Supreme Issue

[Lancey Howard]

So then, Supreme Court confirmations require two-thirds (67 votes) but other judge positions only need a simple majority? I keep learning more every day. Guess I need to brush up on my Constitution. Thanks.

[kattracks]

bttt

[HAL9000]

I keep learning more every day. Guess I need to brush up on my Constitution.

Me too, and if I may offer a suggestion -

www.constitution.org

Look for the "Founding Documents" link. I visit that site frequently when I need to find out what the Constitution says.

[Consort]

She could be Recess Appointed once or twice and later confirmed.

[You Dirty Rats]

Supreme Court nominations require a simple majority, NOT two-thirds.

Clarence Thomas was confirmed on a 52-48 vote.

You might want to read Article III, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

[You Dirty Rats]

The Constitution does NOT require that Supreme Court confirmations require two-thirds of the Senate:

From Article II:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

As you can see from the above, only treaty confirmations require a two-thirds vote.

[Ohioan]

Ah so your theory is that the Republicans in the Senate will be able to successfully stonewall her nomination like the Dems - with the backing of the media- do ours. So the media will back them up in it like they are backing the Dems in their stonewall?

My "theory"--you say? It is not a theory. But your response insults the Republicans in the Senate, even more than I have lately. They do not need the backing of the media to play hardball. Indeed, playing hardball, in a way that forces the media to cover them, is the one way to fight the effect of the media bias. Your over concern for the media bias makes you unable to see important aspects of the battle.

Yes the media is important. It is a factor we must consider in pursuing what is right; that is we have to constantly be thinking in ways to confound the Leftists in the media. That bias is not a reason to compromise our principles, just a reason to take appropriate measures. One of the gravest failures of the President is his failure to use the "bully pulpit" to offset the media.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[HAL9000]

Supreme Court nominations require a simple majority, NOT two-thirds.

Thanks for the correction, Rats.

[mrsmith]

We all agree that the media will launch a firestorm against any stonewall of Hillary's nomination, and that the Senators will tend to fold .
(So soon after Trent Lott's removal no one is silly enough to deny this.)

So let's look at the steps involved:

1. Hillary has the power to demand the nomination from a Dem candidate in return for her support.

2. Her nomination could not be defeated in committee because the media would not allow that.

3. Her nomination could not be fillibustered on the floor because the media would not allow that.

IE: it only comes down to whether 51 Senators will vote for her.