Rumor: New talk on the hill of Obama appointing Hillary to Supreme Court

posted at 5:08 pm on June 27, 2008 by Allahpundit

Thinly sourced, but good enough for a post. Yes, needless to say, Obama isn’t going to offer this as a campaign promise; he wants to make the Republican base go to sleep for the election, not wake it up. But let me offer a radical suggestion: Would it be so terrible if he did nominate her? Remember, the salient question isn’t whether she’d be terrible on the Court. Of course she would, but we’re guaranteed a terrible justice once Obama’s elected. The question is, would she be more terrible than, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or John Paul Stevens (the two justices most likely to retire) or even David Souter. I’m not convinced, and the great virtue of putting her on the Court is that it would remove her from politics, something both Obama and the right could rejoice in. Tom Maguire noted last month that she comes with a lot of legal baggage for a potential nominee, but the Democrats will have enough of a Senate majority to shrug that off. So what exactly is the great argument against Her Majesty being put on the Court? Maybe this — that, once freed of political pressures and blessed with life tenure, she’ll finally be free to indulge her socialist tendencies instead of tossing out pragmatist chum periodically about the threat from Iran or how much she enjoyed going hunting as a girl. That’s a worry, but go back to the main question. What is it that makes Hillary more of a threat than the thousand other left-wing judges and academics out there, like say Harold Koh, who’d be hardline Warren/Brennan liberals on the Court? Is Anthony Kennedy going to fall under her sway because she’s a political celebrity? If anything, I’d think the current justices would want to put her in her place as the junior justice by not following her lead. So you take the risk, and as a reward you don’t have to worry about President Hillary in 2016. Plus, a bruising confirmation fight over her — which we’re bound to lose — would be a glorious way of catalyzing the base after a dispiriting election. Tell me why I’m wrong.

Update: An afterthought. If you believe that Hillary’s guiding star is the accumulation of her own politicial power, then she wouldn’t tack left once installed on the Court — she’d tack right, to take advatange of the fact that the oldest of the five conservative justices is merely 72 and quite likely to outlast even two terms of Obama. If you want to write majority opinions and craft American constitutional law, you have two options: Either persuade Anthony Kennedy to join your side (admittedly not difficult) or join the majority in exchange for being allowed to write the opinion in cases of great import to you. I can imagine a good Machiavellian like Hillary making that latter bargain.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

My grand father not two minutes ago just mad a joke about this. And then I read it. I feel sick.

- The Cat

MirCat on June 27, 2008 at 5:11 PM

As Dr Evil says,

“Riiiigggghhhhhtttttttt.”

Weebork on June 27, 2008 at 5:11 PM

I follow your reasoning, AP, but if she got ensconced on the Supreme Court, we could conceivably have her in our faces for 25+ more years! She’s only 60 and seems healthy. Her mother is long-lived, and I bet Hillary would be the type to die on the bench. Aaaack!

aero on June 27, 2008 at 5:13 PM

We don’t need anyone who thirsts — no, lives — for vengeance against her enemies on the Court.

MrScribbler on June 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Reason #125 to vote McCain in November.

carbon_footprint on June 27, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Nah.

JiangxiDad on June 27, 2008 at 5:15 PM

I must confess, I don’t know much about Madame H pre-1992. Except for the laughable assertion (lie) that she was gung-ho for joining the military and that her parents were republicans. What are her qualifications for the Court? Or do you have to have any?

VolMagic on June 27, 2008 at 5:16 PM

I’m afraid of a Hillary that isn’t afraid of the voters.

omnipotent on June 27, 2008 at 5:17 PM

We don’t need anyone who thirsts — no, lives — for vengeance against her enemies on the Court.

MrScribbler on June 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Why good sir, I can’t possibly see the harm in Hillary reaping the Democratic traitors that stabbed her in the back like she was playing the lead villain in Jeepers Creepers. Why wait for Obama, give this woman the position right now!

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:18 PM

I can’t imagine Ginsburg and Clinton swapping cookie recipes.

Kini on June 27, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Reason #125 to vote McCain in November.
carbon_footprint on June 27, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Oh, no! McCain is a traitor! and shouldn’t get any conservatives support! and his real name is McShamnesty! and he never apologies to conservatives for his liberal ways, I’ve told you a dozen times! and if Hillary ends up being nominated by President Obama and elected by the democrat majority in DC, then it’s still McCain’s fault!

/s

wise_man on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Because I don’t think the management theory of promoting incompetence is a valid way to choose a Justice.

JohnTant on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Remember folks, Stare Decisis just means “Because I said so!”

trubble on June 27, 2008 at 5:21 PM

What prior experience does she have as a judge? I would like Supreme courst justices at the very least to have some prior experience in interpreting law, not making it.

paulsur on June 27, 2008 at 5:21 PM

What are her qualifications for the Court?
VolMagic on June 27, 2008 at 5:16 PM

What, the woman who was born in Illinois and lived her life in Arkansas – Same as her qualifications of being senator from New York, of course, Silly.

wise_man on June 27, 2008 at 5:22 PM

I have trouble believing she would have voted with the majority to give habeus to terrorists in Boumediene.

So, no, I don’t think she’d be that bad on the court.

Nessuno on June 27, 2008 at 5:23 PM

What’s Scalia’s cholesterol?

tommylotto on June 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Oh sweet merciful justice. I don’t think the SCOTUS can have two Chief Justices.

Mormon Doc on June 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM

I have trouble believing she would have voted with the majority to give habeus to terrorists in Boumediene.

So, no, I don’t think she’d be that bad on the court.

Boumediene is by no means the end of line. Even if she wouldn’t have voted for extending habeas rights, there are plenty of other areas where she could do major damage and not attract a dimes worth of attention. People only follow the big cases, not the minor ones that still have an impact on this country.

kc2ige on June 27, 2008 at 5:26 PM

Better her than Clenis.

Beo on June 27, 2008 at 5:29 PM

What are her qualifications for the Court?
VolMagic on June 27, 2008 at 5:16 PM

She did fail the DC bar exam. Does that count?

JiangxiDad on June 27, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Or Edwards.

Beo on June 27, 2008 at 5:29 PM

must confess, I don’t know much about Madame H pre-1992. Except for the laughable assertion (lie) that she was gung-ho for joining the military and that her parents were republicans. What are her qualifications for the Court? Or do you have to have any?

VolMagic on June 27, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Well she was an ugly hippie.

- The Cat

MirCat on June 27, 2008 at 5:30 PM

and the great virtue of putting her on the Court is that it would remove her from politics

Not really. Most of everything judicial is politics too.

Spirit of 1776 on June 27, 2008 at 5:30 PM

wise_man on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

LOL
Juan McLies Sham-shamnesty McBushItler Halliburton!

carbon_footprint on June 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM

What is it that makes Hillary more of a threat than the thousand other left-wing judges and academics out there

Her and her husbands endemic corruption for starters.

elduende on June 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM

WHAT’S NEXT…Measuring the drapes, and falling flat on his face with a defunct, wannabe presidential seal. NOW on the Messiah’s sacrificial throne, Hitlery being promised to replace sleeping on the job, ex ACLUer Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Hitlery’s farther left, than left and off the planet. Hitlery would need a twenty foot extension ladder just get back up on level ground. Will wondrous shocks from the Messiah never cease!

All kidding aside Hussein. WHEN are you going to furnish Americans with a certified, unaltered, non redacted, embossed stamped BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Because, as of date, we don’t believe you’re a bona fide American citizen to hold office, let alone run for the presidency.

byteshredder on June 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Beo on June 27, 2008 at 5:29 PM

No, Clenis has a bad ticker. She could live two decades longer.

carbon_footprint on June 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM

She could live two decades longer.

And they don’t get rid of you until another decade after that.

JiangxiDad on June 27, 2008 at 5:35 PM

and the great virtue of putting her on the Court is that it would remove her from politics

Not really. Most of everything judicial is politics too.
Spirit of 1776 on June 27, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Agreed. However, “Remove her from politics” as in, can’t run for office since she’s a supreme court justice.

When I first read it, I thought that it was ‘as a supreme court judge, they are removed from politics.’ and Hillary would obviously love to be on the supreme court to make decisions that would last for decades past her. And we all know what Hillary’s politics are. In any case, being nominated for life to the SCOTUS is a crappy trade for making her intelligible for running for re-election for senator from the New York

wise_man on June 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM

She has never been a judge, and very little judicial experience…my God, she would be terrible…rather have her as a VP, rather a President then this. This is forever…Noooooooo

right2bright on June 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM

I’d think the current justices would want to put her in her place as the junior justice by not following her lead.

The Supreme Court is famous for its hazing rituals.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 27, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Well, the thought of John Roberts schooling her does send a bit of a tingle up my leg.

rockmom on June 27, 2008 at 5:42 PM

From a purely Entertainment perspective it would be fun to see how Congress would handle her during the public interview process.

cannonball on June 27, 2008 at 5:42 PM

She has more of an ability to play kingmaker in the role of Senate Majority leader than in the SCOTUS. No matter who wins in November, the Senate is where the greatest density per person of power lies, the greatest of which in the ML. With Clenis & Co. working magic behind the scenes, even the Lightworker will have trouble getting anything done. Certainly McCain would have to pay homage to the Pantsuit any time he wanted to squeeze one out.

spmat on June 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM

If she replaced one of the ultra-leftists, wouldn’t that be an improvement?

Your Jewish Master on June 27, 2008 at 5:49 PM

Because Hillary is so much more conservative than one of the ultra-leftists?

wise_man on June 27, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Because Hillary is so much more conservative than one of the ultra-leftists?

She may one micron width less liberal.
An improvement. Not any worse.

Your Jewish Master on June 27, 2008 at 5:59 PM

If Obama gets in Hillary will go directly under the bus…his arrogancy seems pretty good at burning bridges…

DCJeff on June 27, 2008 at 6:00 PM

The worst — W O R S T — imaginable payoff for Hillary. Make her VP, Senate Majority Leader, Secretary of Socialist Transformation, Any Elected Office, Anything, but NOT USSC.

petefrt on June 27, 2008 at 6:02 PM

Absurd idea…the woman is a Dva. She lives for her face on the news and to hear her many words of wit and wisdom on the news. The court is the exact opposite, no high profile, ever, no attention except when an opinion is produced…

No, it would be obscurity for the old Hag. Besides, she is ever less qualified than Harriet Miers. $100K lawyers are a dime a dozen.

JIMV on June 27, 2008 at 6:03 PM

All those 5-4 decisions lately are looking pretty ominous if Obama gets elected.

RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM

JiangxiDad on June 27, 2008 at 5:35 PM

LOL, John Paul Stevens, case in point.

carbon_footprint on June 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM

Just look at the 5/4 ruling this past week. Two more liberals on the Supreme Court and they will try to take away the citizen’s right to bear arms.

Sounder on June 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM

Any more whispers of this will bring out conservatives in droves…even for McCain.

SouthernGent on June 27, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Dear God, no!

the great virtue of putting her on the Court is that it would remove her from politics

Don’t count on it.

CP on June 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM

We get what we pay for.

As far as Clinton or another let me ask you all this….
Have you ever had a car salesman push one car, of the same model, on you over another? ‘Oh, but white shows the dirt’ or ‘red fades so quickly, but this blue one is jussssssssst
right!’. The salesman isn’t trying to get that blue one off the lot because he likes you.

I’d rather someone without the star-power get run through the confirmation process.

Limerick on June 27, 2008 at 6:33 PM

The question is would she trust Obama to keep his word.

Considering that he has shown that he will use anyone and any issue for his own purposes then toss them away like a piece of trash I would think she would not trust him as far as she could throw him.

Besides, she is still in it to win it.

Nahanni on June 27, 2008 at 6:35 PM

If we get him, we get her, and we will deserve them both, heartily, and for a long time!

Entelechy on June 27, 2008 at 6:37 PM

I wish Souter would retire and move out of NH. He makes me ashamed.

jeanie on June 27, 2008 at 6:40 PM

You’re right, putting there would fire up the Repbulican Base for 2012, and for HER, it’s like putting her out to pasture….good move…

Dale in Atlanta on June 27, 2008 at 6:56 PM

With all of her social-engineering ideas, Hillary Clinton would use/abuse a role on the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench and be self-righteous about it.

Besides, with all of her failures to remember facts when tesifying in the past, how would her faulty memory serve her in tackling cases of weighty consequence?

Senatorial comity would prevent anyone on the Judiciary Committee from asking her questions that probe her suitability in any meaningful way. I’m not even sure if she knows what the Constitution says.

Exit question: She gets the spoils for being the longest-lasting spoiler of the Obama instant coronation?

onlineanalyst on June 27, 2008 at 7:03 PM

I wonder what her ABA rating is?

Lonetown on June 27, 2008 at 8:02 PM

Is there some kind of race to put Democrats into the positions they are least qualified to fill?

Hillary’s proper position in the courtroom is “defendant.”

Obama’s proper position in government is “rookie trainee.”

landlines on June 27, 2008 at 8:21 PM

Let’s take up a collection and pay off her campaign debt if she’ll promise to permanently expatriate to France.

whitetop on June 27, 2008 at 8:29 PM

If you can sell a few pardons for millions for one moment in time at the end of a presidential term, imagine how much you could make selling verdicts for the next 25 years. Probably more than enough to make fund raising for Chelsea’s presidential run unecessary.

KW64 on June 27, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Aren’t lesbians on the court unconstitutional?

mylegsareswollen on June 27, 2008 at 9:47 PM

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Both Clintons hobnobbing on the campain trail with Obama saying we need them? yeah. We need them alright. I hold them responsible for the lack of action on Saddam over the years and the slashing of gov’t abilitites which may have prevented 9/11. Just before Bill left office he pardoned what, 100 prisoner friends of his? unreal. Bad bad news indeed.

johnnyU on June 27, 2008 at 10:05 PM

and of course the answer is DONT ELECT HIM!

johnnyU on June 27, 2008 at 10:07 PM

At last… a potential SCOTUS nominee with less experience than Harriet Miers!

D2Boston on June 27, 2008 at 10:07 PM

If she replaced one of the ultra-leftists, wouldn’t that be an improvement?

Your Jewish Master on June 27, 2008 at 5:49 PM

I don’t know, it’s all relative at this point I suppose. The fact that this is even being discussed is what is most sickening to me.

labrat on June 27, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Our rabble rousers should make a big deal of this…

Either
1) BHO doesn’t deny it, and it’s a rallying point for conservatives, or
2) BHO says that isn’t an option, in which case that horrible possibility is permanently removed from the world.

I’d rather have an unknown liberal than a known one like HRC. What’s to say the Left can’t have their own version of Souter?

SocklessJoe on June 27, 2008 at 11:04 PM

“Would it be so terrible if he did nominate her?” AND
“The question is, would she be more terrible than, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or John Paul Stevens?”

Yes. Yes it would be so terrible. IMO the question is WTF makes her even remotely qualified for consideration.

The mask of the Supine Court has slipped badly. Especially these last few decisions. Nominating Hillary would be the the ultimate f u to the citizenry and to the “supposed to be” hallowed institution. I have a hard enough time taking anything they say seriously now.

America1st on June 27, 2008 at 11:55 PM

If Hillary was put on the court, I’d have to rethink my belief in a loving God… At any rate, do you really think she’ll take that when she could run for President later? Let’s just say Obama turns out to be Jimmy Carter so she runs against him, like Reagan ran against an incumbent, only she wins this time because obviously Obama is a disaster…

And our golden boy Jindal is apparently only fool’s gold, so who are we going to put up there?

John_Locke on June 28, 2008 at 2:24 AM

Obama would never keep any promise like that to Hillary. In fact I can hear him now, ‘That’s not the Hillary I knew…..’

mustng66 on June 28, 2008 at 6:21 AM

Hillary can never remember anything when shes asked, how could she be taken seriously as a Justice like this? After all, she would have to base decisions in part on what history REALLY says, not what she thinks it says or has tried to change.

tx2654 on June 28, 2008 at 1:52 PM

With HRC on the SCOTUS we can look forward to:

1 Full pardons for real estate swindlers.
2 Legalization of cattle futures manipulation.
3 Blockage of any attempt to exhume Vincent Foster to find out the true cause of death.
4 Chemical castration for all philandering husbands.

MaiDee on June 28, 2008 at 1:58 PM

One final decision HRC would make as member of SCOTUS:

5 Anybody using the term “ass like the back of a bus” will get their tongues cut out.

MaiDee on June 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM