Can't argue about that.
But think about the number of courtroom victories sustained by the Clinton WH.
I think the number approached zero, on more than two dozen issues.
Not some PR victory on the basis of the spin and BS opporunties it would engender. This one would need to be real and substantive.
And again, on the merits of law and substance, the Clinton WH persistently had a pathetic record of convincing any court in any juridiction of its arguments. The same would be true in this case. Bill Clinton is not going to "refine" the 22d Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (unless he refines the notion that former Presidents cannot run again for VP by using linguistic ambiguities within the United States Constitution).
I don't expect Bill Clinton's dismal litigation record to improve, and I also expect that the reaction to such an attempt would be far more vocal than during Al Gore's attempt to hijack the Constitution.