Hilary Clinton for the supreme court?

Amd_hillary5 I think that would be a terrible idea, not because she would not make a good Justice.  No, I think the real issue is that she is proving to be a capable foreign minister for the United States and I can't imagine who could adequately replace her there.  She is proving to be capable of managing all the special interest people foisted on her, keeping them in line without ruffling feathers too much.  This is invaluable.

Perhaps that is why "some Democrats" want her moved to the high court?  pl


This entry was posted in government. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Hilary Clinton for the supreme court?

  1. Fred says:

    Col. I agree that nominating Hilary Clinton would throw a monkey wrench into the Obamba administrations FP operations. I also would like to see a non lifetime judge. A governor would be a good choice. How about Bill? You can hear the right wing noise machine screamings all the way to Whitewater…
    It would be funny, he’d would probably be a good pick, but would be too distracting. You can just imagine all the ‘compromises’ you could get passed legislatively just to have the conservatives avoid having either one. If Sotomayor is not his first choice I would not be surprised if he picked a governor like Granholm of Michigan. The added benefit would be giving Lt. Gov. Cherry an actual chance to win the governorship in Michigan, which looks to be a pretty tough fight for 2010.

  2. The beaver says:

    I guess some “democrats” would like to see a US Sec of State who will “kowtow” to Bibi and the AIPAC clique and just “rubber stamps” whatever the ally does in the ME.

  3. Maureen Lang says:

    HRC as one of the Supremes now?
    At this point in time, definitely not. HRC is now settling into doing an outstanding job right where she is. A good bit later on would be the better time.

  4. Cato the Censor says:

    Given what a lightning rod Ms. Clinton is for so many people in the USA (for reasons that I’ve never understood other than the fact that her gender and demeanor seem to give certain individuals the willies), it probably wouldn’t be too good an idea to nominate her to the SC for that reason as well.

  5. Just guessing but my guess is former Harvard Law School Dean Kagan! Very very intelligent, female and potentially not just an Associate Justice but because of negotiating skills the next Chief Justice.

  6. Green Zone Cafe says:

    I agree about Hillary, give her a chance to straighten out US foreign policy.
    I would like Jennifer Granholm for the Supreme Court. As Fred said, a governor would be something not seen recently (since Earl Warren?).

  7. Mongoose says:

    I initially was disappointed when H. Clinton was nominated for Secretary of State–I was hoping at the time she would be given the DoJ portfolio and then be nominated to the SC. I was also of the opinion that she’d be “in the bag” for the state of Israel. That could still be the case–though she seems to have much better diplomatic skills than I assumed–perhaps the tough foreign policy image she projected during the primaries was simply a calculated move to the right of Obama (and not sincere on her part), assuming that he would eventually falter and the Republicans would have a difficult time portraying her as “weak” in the general election . No need now to play musical chairs. I say nominate Harold Koh, Kate Stith, Elizabeth Warren (my personal choice), or Sonia Sotomayor.

  8. Jim Bouman says:

    President Obama will have several kicks at the can–opportunities to appoint Justices over the next four (or eight) years.
    I’d be happy to see the President season HRC for four or five years at the State Dept., then propose her as a nominee to the SCOTUS–assuming her diplomatic career is admirable.

  9. I meant to mention that if Elena Kagan now Solicitor General at DOJ is confirmed Justice Goldberg will immediately retire. You heard it here first. Guessing of course.
    Result is OBAMA needs to be ready with a second nominee as soon as Kagan is confirmed.

  10. Will says:

    HRC for the supreme. A good way to waste a beautiful mind!

  11. jr786 says:

    What has she done to warrant any cheerleading? Her supposed denouncement of the israeli plan to level Arab in Eastern al Quds resulted in…houses being leveled. The israelis have yet to lift the blockade on Gaza that she ‘denounced’.
    Best of all was the State Department putting Iran at the top of the list of state sponsored terrorism, at the exact moment that Obama is supposedly trying to forget the tactics of the Bush Administration. The Iranians were furious, rightly so as no evidence was forthcoming.
    Anyone who could appoint Dennis Ross as senior adviser on the Middle East is playing for the other side. Obama said her vote on the Iraq War proved her incompetent to be President. What actions/achievements to date show her to be a competent SOS?

  12. robt willmann says:

    When Hillary Clinton “dropped out” of the Democratic primary in 2008, a deal was certainly made.
    What was it? Probably what happened: she was to receive a high profile cabinet position, maybe even the one she got.
    Barack — and Michelle(!) — Obama will decide the new appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    This might well eliminate H. Clinton.
    What obviously motivated Bill and Hillary Clinton were the limelight and politics. The federal job that is most in the limelight next to being president is Secretary of State. A Justice of the Supreme Court is out of the spotlight for the most part, and usually should keep his or her mouth shut about the issues before the court.
    Accepting a Supreme Court appointment at this time would eliminate too many options for Hillary. Obama’s awful economic policies, monstrous deficits, and escalating wars, including the active mess in Pakistan that was not there before we showed up, may doom his presidency. George Bush Sr. lasted one term, as tax increases and the economy knocked him out of the saddle in favor of … Bill Clinton. She still has her eye on the brass ring.
    Doing the job right as an appeals court judge is a lot of work, almost all of it reading and studying. Reading the petitions filed asking the Supreme Court to hear a particular case, reading transcripts of trials and papers filed in the course of lawsuits, reading the legal briefs of the parties, reading the law, reading memos circulated by the other judges, reading emergency applications in death penalty cases, and so on. After that comes the tedious process of agreeing to a written opinion resolving the case or writing one in dissent.
    That is the last thing Hillary Clinton would want to do unless there is no other government job available with a lot of authority built into it.
    I would not want to see her on the Supreme Court, and I must part company with William R. Cumming and oppose Elena Kagan for that position.
    President Obama said, “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.”
    Ms. Kagan has never litigated a case in court, worked two years for a large Washington, D.C. law firm, and otherwise has worked only as a law clerk and in a law school. Her “specialty” is something called “administrative law”, an Alice in Wonderland creation in which I have had some experience and which you cannot really call “law”.
    Have you heard some of the horror stories about the conduct of the Transportation Security Adminstration (TSA) at airports? That is administrative law.
    I helped represent a career sheriff’s department captain who was fired by a politically vindictive sheriff, and after several years of litigation, we were told by the appellate court that the fired captain did not have a right to know the names of his accusers before his administrative law hearing.
    At her confirmation hearing for solicitor general, Ms. Kagan is reported to have said that anyone “suspected” of “helping finance” (whatever that means) Al Qaeda should be subject to indefinite detention without trial if detained outside of a physical battle zone. Meaning, ladies and gentlemen, that U.S. citizens in the U.S.A. “suspected” of some vague something by the executive branch should be detained indefinitely without a trial.
    Obama correctly states that what matters is how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.
    But will he choose someone on that basis?
    None of the names floated so far fit that bill. However, there are lawyers in communities all over the country scratching around trying to help people with real problems, trying to work out a payment plan for some sort of a fee when the client is living week to week, and grinding through more and more procedural hurdles just to get to trial. Obama might surprise us and appoint such a person, if he even knows that type of lawyer.
    But ominously, we learn that Larry Summers, the main White House economic adviser, appointed Elena Kagan dean of the law school when he was president of Harvard.
    That is the same Larry Summers who, while in the Treasury Department in the Bill Clinton administration, was involved up to his eyeballs in the devaluation of the Mexican peso, which destroyed the emerging middle class in Mexico.
    We shall see if reality matches the rhetoric.

  13. Robert Willman comments noted and while I agree with his facts disagree with his conclusions. This should be fun watching as Obama has indicated name for Associate Justice nominee may be released by end of this week. A real record. Maybe he should be the first to name a non-lawyer since no Constitutional requirement for law school attendance or bar membership. Perhaps a Bill Gates? Perhaps a Warren Buffet? Perhaps a Jimmy Carter? I use the names but not necessarily thinking of these individuals but outstanding citizens with brain power and vast experience. Perhaps a Michael Bloomberg?
    Perhaps Secretary Gates? The point is who should be on the Court that will assist in its important deliberations over the future of our democracy (republic)?

  14. Fred says:

    “…U.S. citizens in the U.S.A. “suspected” of some vague something by the executive branch should be detained indefinitely without a trial.” This is the Military Commissions Act of 2006; enacted after Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Of course in Gitmo they aren’t US citizens, thus not having rights, at least according to conservatives like John Yoo and Jay Baybee. As for Larry Summers singlehandedly destroying the Mexican peso and the Mexican middle class… please, the Mexican’s had nothing to do with their own ecomony? So much for Mexican democracy.

  15. greg0 says:

    There will be more openings on the Supreme Court for a Hillary nomination.
    As Letterman said last night, can she go from pant suits to robes?

  16. Yeah, I’m a broken record with no real insight…but I wish this fellow could be our Secretary of State.

  17. Arun says:

    I saw this in Dawn, and if the agreement holds, this would count as a remarkable achievement.
    “WASHINGTON: Pakistan and Afghanistan signed on Wednesday a memorandum of understanding to begin talks on a transit trade agreement which will ultimately allow India to use the Wagah-Khyber route for trade with Kabul.
    The memorandum of understanding commits the two ‘countries to achieving a trade transit agreement by the end of the year, which we believe will have great economic benefits for both peoples,’ said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who hosted the Afghan and Pakistani presidents for the first round of the second trilateral talks.
    ‘This is an historic event. This agreement has been under discussion for 43 years without resolution,’ she said.
    ‘Afghanistan and Pakistan have reached an important milestone in their efforts to generate foreign investment and stronger economic growth and trade opportunities.’”

  18. Carl O. says:

    I can think of a better reason to keep her off the Supreme Court: She needs to be available in case the Obama White house disintegrates under the pressue of Larry Summers and his clieque of behavioral economists. Former S&L regulator William K. Black warned in an interview on ttruthout.com that the polices of Summers and Geithner (and by extension, Orszag) “will destroy Obama’s presidency,” by making the economic crisis worse. When thet happens, we’ll need someone to step in and provide some actual leadership.

Comments are closed.