I can't find any mention of this other than our local news, so I don't know how viable it really is. But if true, I personally think they should let her finish the job of SoS, at which she seems to be doing well, if maybe a bit under the radar. The woman can only wear so many hats in one lifetime. Other reactions?
===========================================
http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/90618989.html
Hillary Clinton To Fill U.S. Supreme Court Vacancy?
Senator Orrin Hatch says he's heard Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's name mentioned in connection with the Supreme Court vacancy brought about by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.
Hatch didn't elaborate in an interview Monday. Appearing with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy on NBC's "Today" show, the Utah Republican said only, "I heard Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's name today and that would be an interesting person in the mix."
Mrs. Clinton - Supreme Court?
Moderator: Super Moderators
Mrs. Clinton - Supreme Court?
Did you ever stop to think, and then forget to start again?
"The President thinks Secretary Clinton is doing an excellent job as Secretary of State and wants her to remain in that position," said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor.
Politico.com
First, I think that pretty much puts an end to that idea.
Second, I am a big fan of Hillary - but am not sure this would be the best position for her to serve the country. It's been a while since Hillary was a lawyer, no?
Politico.com
First, I think that pretty much puts an end to that idea.
Second, I am a big fan of Hillary - but am not sure this would be the best position for her to serve the country. It's been a while since Hillary was a lawyer, no?
"You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead Maupin
Re: Mrs. Clinton - Supreme Court?
Live365 wrote: I can't find any mention of this other than our local news, so I don't know how viable it really is. But if true, I personally think they should let her finish the job of SoS, at which she seems to be doing well, if maybe a bit under the radar. The woman can only wear so many hats in one lifetime. Other reactions?
===================================
Hillary Clinton would be an interesting and perhaps wise choice, Live. While I agree she is pursuing President Obama's foreign policy in a satisfactory manner, I disagree she is "doing well" as Secretary of State but I don't think anyone could while following what I consider misplaced priorities. Still elections have consequences, as will future elections so I do not fault her for that.
I believe that her nomination to the Supreme Court would accomplish a few other objectives for President Obama and even the Republican Party as well, so I do not discount the possibility. It would eliminate any chance of her challenging the President in the 2012 Democratic Presidential Primaries. It would also remove her from further consideration as a potential Democratic nominee in other years, and many Republicans would like that (although a few will loudly protest regardless of who any selection is, as is always the case in recent years for judicial nominees from both parties).
While Secretary Clinton is not a true Constitutional Scholar, neither are any of the other Justices other than the very Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and while it would probably be good for the court and the country (and a delight to legal scholars on both the left and the right to see well founded and innovative Constitutional arguments put forth in opposition to each other) if a Liberal counterpart to him were placed on the court, confirmation of such a choice would cause an extended political battle at a time the President may not feel it desirable heading into difficult midterm elections for his party. She is bright, intelligent, and does not have a long "paper trail" that could be used against her in confirmation hearings. As a former United States Senator, she would also be acceptable to some Republican Senators who would otherwise vote against almost any nominee the President would put forth.
There is a strong feeling from many that the nominee this time should be someone who while practicing Law in the past has not served as a Judge. This would be much like the late Chief Justice Earl Warren who served as Governor of California prior to his nomination by President Eisenhower. Such a nominee would probably view the Constitution and the Law from a somewhat different and perhaps beneficial mindset than other choices would.
In addition, whoever the President nominates will be a "Liberal" but Republicans knowing this may feel that Clinton would not be the worst choice from the GOP perspective on this, and might even amazingly be expected to move the Court slightly to the Right from where Justice John Paul Stevens placed it. Because of all of these factors a Filibuster would be unlikely. I believe her confirmation would be assured if nominated and by a substantial bi-partisan majority.
Secretary Clinton is well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. From my point of view, I think she is as good a choice as President Obama would likely name to the Court. I have no objection to her nomination and while I think it unlikely she will be chosen think she would serve with distinction if she were to become a Justice.
Last edited by racehorse on 04-12-2010 01:07 PM, edited 1 time in total.
racehorse
Kaztronic wrote: "The President thinks Secretary Clinton is doing an excellent job as Secretary of State and wants her to remain in that position," said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor.
Politico.com
First, I think that pretty much puts an end to that idea.
I suppose so. Too bad.
Again, I am not surprised.
Of course, Secretary Clinton will now say she would rather remain as Secretary of State than serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court. Don't believe this, though. Unless she really plans on seeking the Presidency again (as is possible), I am sure she would rather be on the Supreme Court for life than a position which will probably end in January 2013.
Kaztronic wrote:
Second, I am a big fan of Hillary - but am not sure this would be the best position for her to serve the country. It's been a while since Hillary was a lawyer, no?
She is still licensed. Once a Lawyer, always a Lawyer. Serving this country in the United States Senate and as Secretary of State may give her unique and perhaps desirable Constitutional perspectives that other Justices may be lacking in.
Last edited by racehorse on 04-12-2010 01:17 PM, edited 1 time in total.
racehorse
Yeah, too bad.
Clinton would be the perfect solution for such an important political position.
Such an appointment would surely frighten the Establishment, and signal a new dawn for the insignificant 99%.
Clinton would be the perfect solution for such an important political position.
Such an appointment would surely frighten the Establishment, and signal a new dawn for the insignificant 99%.
Last edited by SquidInk on 04-12-2010 02:31 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
I like some of the comments I've heard lately and would pay good money to watch the GOP's head explode...
The Honorable Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. would make an excellent justice.
The Honorable Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. would make an excellent justice.
Republican - re·pub·li·can (r-pbl-kn) - political party, which will control part of Congress 2011-2012, undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - simply for a campaign advantage in 2012.
Check the constitution, it's not a requirement to be a lawyer.. there have been more than a few non-lawyers on the SOCTUS.Swerdloc wrote: Gore is not a lawyer, however.
And I think any intelligent, sane, rational person would agree we need some non-lawyers to look at things for a chance.
((that of course leaves any member of the GOP out of the discussion))
Republican - re·pub·li·can (r-pbl-kn) - political party, which will control part of Congress 2011-2012, undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - simply for a campaign advantage in 2012.
Rombaldi wrote: Check the constitution, it's not a requirement to be a lawyer.. there have been more than a few non-lawyers on the SOCTUS.
And I think any intelligent, sane, rational person would agree we need some non-lawyers to look at things for a chance.
((that of course leaves any member of the GOP out of the discussion))
Rombaldi, apparently unlike yourself, I am not "intelligent", "sane", or "rational" because I disagree in the strongest sense about this!
:p No non-Attorney will be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States EVER again!
No contemporary American President of either party will ever again nominate such a person who should and would be rejected from serious consideration for confirmation immediately. Most states even require their Judiciary members to be Attorneys and the Federal government should as well but in practice in modern times, all are anyway.
As for your other comment, remember, Justice John Paul Stevens is a Republican. Should he have been ruled "out of the discussion" as well when nominated? I doubt most of your fellow "Progressives" would agree (Not that I think President Obama has the political strength, courage, or wisdom to actually nominate someone from the GOP to serve on the court).
racehorse
racehorse wrote: Rombaldi, apparently unlike yourself, I am not "intelligent", "sane", or "rational"
You said it, I didn't
Republican - re·pub·li·can (r-pbl-kn) - political party, which will control part of Congress 2011-2012, undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - simply for a campaign advantage in 2012.