How about Hillary as next SCOTUS justice?
posted at 10:12 am on April 12, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Did Orrin Hatch really hear Hillary Clinton’s name get floated as a potential Supreme Court nominee? The New York Daily News reports that the Senator from Utah briefly discussed the idea on Meet the Press yesterday, without noting whether he’d support Hillary’s nomination if Barack Obama offered it:
Sen. Orrin Hatch says he’s heard Secretary of State Hillary 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.”
Jammie Wearing Fool notes that the idea isn’t so unreasonable:
Let’s face it. She’d breeze through confirmation hearings since she’s a known commodity. It would also spare Obama any further political damage rather than going the far left route that’s sure to rifle feathers in an already heated atmosphere.
Unless he’s really itching for a fight, it would be a safe pick. Whether her legal acumen is up to snuff we’ll let the lawyers out there decide that.
A Hillary nomination actually solves a few problems for Obama. The Senate usually likes to confirm current and former members of the club, which would take a lot of the sting out of the confirmation process. While Republicans in the upper chamber probably won’t vote for Hillary, they also would be very unlikely to filibuster her nomination. Her relative lack of a top-line legal career will get trumped by her political career, so even the “legal acumen” argument can be bypassed.
Politically, Obama gets a win by puting another woman on the court. Unlike with at least one of the apparent short-listers (Elana Kagan), no one will doubt Hillary’s liberal bona fides. But best of all, Obama would be dispatching the one Democrat who could conceivably win a primary race against him in 2012 if his numbers continue to fall. Once on the Supreme Court, Hillary would not step down to run for President, and Bill Clinton would be effectively neutralized as well.
There are only two flies in the ointment. First, Hillary is a little old for SCOTUS picks. At 63, she might only get 20 years tops on the court, where a younger pick could have twice that amount, extending the Obama legacy further. The bigger problem would be nominating a new Secretary of State. Hillary has been a disaster from the start, with her “reset” button fiasco, and American diplomacy has been botched around the world. A confirmation hearing for State in this circumstance would give Republicans a platform to lay out the administration’s disastrous record in excruciating detail.
Would that be worth it to keep Obama from facing a primary challenge? With any other President, I’d guess no. With Obama, the personal is the ultimate in political calculation, so I wouldn’t rule it out.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Mrs. Clinton has the experience and judgment to serve…
on The Marriage Ref.
Christien on April 12, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t view Hillary as the most liberal choice he could make. And I think it’s questionable whether she’s to the left of Stevens.
Vyce on April 12, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Won’t work, she is policy and politics oriented. No way she could make the turn to rule of law.
FireBlogger on April 12, 2010 at 11:21 AM
1) That’s a fairly naive statement.
2) She’d be better than Stevens.
3) She hasn’t aged well. But then she didn’t youth well either.
misterpeasea on April 12, 2010 at 11:24 AM
For the record, I do not want Hillary to be on the Supreme Court.
This, however, did bring a big smile to my face.
dnlchisholm on April 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM
There may be a third fly in the ointment for Hillary. Didn’t she get fired off the legal team that was trying to determine if Nixon should be impeached? Something about manufacturing evidence?
Can’t quite remember.
evilned on April 12, 2010 at 11:29 AM
I would support Hillary for SCOTUS – she’s a flaming liberal – but she’d solve a big problem for our side.
Here’s the deal …
Obama WILL NOT be the Democratic nominee in 2012 at the rate he’s going. I’m firmly convinced that moderate Democrats are going to attempt to pull the wheel from his hands and back someone like Hillary for the ’12 nominee. I think it’s better for us if we run against Obama – we win if we make the election about him but it won’t be about him if he’s not running.
So putting Hillary on the SCOTUS really doesn’t unbalance the court at all and it gets rid of a potential problem for us in 2012.
HondaV65 on April 12, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Oh that old news? We’ve been over that already, why does the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy always bring up the old stuff that we’ve explained to our satisfaction.
Rodino was the name
thomasaur on April 12, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Yep, I can see it now. Hillary gets elected to the SCOTUS and she appoints Sandy Berger and John Burgess as her law clerks.
It all fits.
Syd B. on April 12, 2010 at 11:33 AM
Not to sure about that either.
Smooth Rooster on April 12, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Hillary is a criminal and a terrible candidate..I have not forgotten Whitewater or Cattle Futures…
JIMV on April 12, 2010 at 11:43 AM
I think Hillary on the Supreme Court is perfect, personally.
She is no mental heavyweight, I fully support her and (another mental midget) the wise latina as Obama’s legacy on the SCOTUS.
ORconservative on April 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Obama might think that nominating Hillary for SCOTUS would get “Hillary (and Bill) out of his hair” for 2012.
But Hillary does have skeletons in her own legal closet other than Bill, and even if she is confirmed, Senate Republicans could have a field day questioning her shady deals.
Another potential problem is that Bill Clinton has made a fortune on speeches and foreign business deals–would he have to cut back on that if Hillary was on SCOTUS? Would she turn down SCOTUS to have his $$$ ?
Steve Z on April 12, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Pundit fodder.
Americannodash on April 12, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Better than a lot of the other potential nominees. I don’t particulary care for her, but I don’t think she’s a hardened Marxist like Obama and so many of his comrades.
uncalheels on April 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM
I think so too. On policy, we all know where she stands, and on some even issues, even to the right of some left GOPers, but the politics part is what would kill her. Every one of her assents or dissents would be disected in the minutes of detail and she did something that was off the wall very leftist, with the new GOP congress(which we will have this fall), she could at anytime be impeached. That would be strange. A husband and wife both impeached?
ConservativePartyNow on April 12, 2010 at 12:05 PM
Go to any graduate school in America and you will find hundreds of Stevens and Hillaries, and dozens of Obamas. They are all stamped out of plastic, but from two completely different molds.
Hillary, Stevens and most other SCOTUS justices have been run-of-the-mill over-eductated liberals — addle-headed dilettentes, trying to (somehow) get Communism to work right for the first time in history.
Barack Hussein Obama is cut from a different cloth. Don’t be fooled by the fact that Obama personally doesn’t even have any remote ancestors who were wronged by any American’s remote anscestors. This is religious; not genetic. And it is a religion based SOLELY on vengeance. He is a Black Liberation Theologist. They are not trying to get anything to work; their only goal is to destroy.
Even the craziest moonbat’s willful stupidity is tempered by personal interest in not destroying everything all at once. That does not apply to Obama’s ilk.
logis on April 12, 2010 at 12:16 PM
Haven’t read the comments yet, but has it already been mentioned that Hillary can’t pass the bar in D.C.?
Jenfidel on April 12, 2010 at 12:23 PM
I agree, but I don’t really think she’s smart enough to even fake the job.
Exactly.
peski on April 12, 2010 at 12:26 PM
I have respect for the Supreme Court. To nominate such a bafoon as Hillary is a disgrace to the court. It is below Harriet Myers by a long shot. Hillary is a disater as SOS and doesn’t have the brains to be on Supreme Court.
Dire Straits on April 12, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Did she take it? I don’t think you have to be a member of any bar to be a judge. But if she took it and didn’t pass that would be fun to know.
petunia on April 12, 2010 at 12:39 PM
A bar where 67% pass on the first try, a very easy bar exam…however she did pass Arkansas, I think one of the highest passage rates are historically 70-75%.
right2bright on April 12, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Yes, and failed. My sister aced it first try at 44.
katy the mean old lady on April 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM
petunia on April 12, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Here ya go.
Found it with a quick Google search, but I’m not sure our GOP Senators would be able to find it during the confirmation process….
(Just my opinion, but I’d think “Senator Clinton, do you think failing the DC bar exam should be considered in evaluating you to sit on the SCOTUS” would be an excellent question!)
cs89 on April 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Obama had does his very best to politicize the SCOTUS. His nomination of the lightweight Latina is an example, as was his SOTU speech and political campaign against the sitting court regarding Citizens United. Nominating Shrillery would certainly be consistent with the Constitutional Law professor’s MO.
MJBrutus on April 12, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Yes he will. He’s the most popular candidate that the left has at this point, and I don’t see that changing before 2012.
UltimateBob on April 12, 2010 at 1:14 PM
David Gelpen said it best when describing Hillary. He said,”Hillary lies with such ease that it is unnerving.” Hillary has the morals of an alley cat. It would make a mockery of the Supreme Court to have someone who is incapable of the truth to make life decisions for the country. Of course, what is good for the American people has never entered Obama’s mind.
volsense on April 12, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Yes, of course.
Hillary Rodham — what a towering, colossal legal intellect.
Harriet Miers is but a legal pismire compared to the grand constitutional pantsuited giant who is known in scholarly legal circles as “The Female One.”
Oh, that towering Rose Law Firm experience. Oh, my, indeed. Magnificent jurisprudence, thou art Hillary.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Edouard on April 12, 2010 at 1:28 PM
Let’s think this through.
1. It seems that Republicans will get a majority in both houses, but it’s practically impossible they could get get enough to over-ride a Veto.
2. Obama will veto EVERYTHING the Republican Congress proposes.
3. The economy will continue to get much, much worse between now and November 2012….
By 2012, there will be no self-proclaimed moderates in America outside a very tiny handful of liberal media shills. That’s like eight or ten people in the whole country.
What could the DNC do under those circumstances? Give up its liberal base and become the Moderate Party?
No damned way.
The people who believe that corporations cause all poverty, and that government spending creates all wealth will become far more radical; they can’t do anything else. To them, Obama will stop being The Messiah and become their God.
logis on April 12, 2010 at 1:32 PM
If Obama is stupid enough to do this, I say let him. Clinton is clearly not qualified. It will make the Dems look like a banana republic political party.
Speedwagon82 on April 12, 2010 at 1:35 PM
BHO has a huge ego. Think for one minute. Would he give Hillary a life time appointment to the high court where she could have a greater impact than he? I don’t think so. There is a reason he keeps her out of Country.
tom0508 on April 12, 2010 at 1:40 PM
There is ZERO chance of Obama being primaried, especially by Hillary. Lefties still think the Clintons are racist but are pretending they don’t since they are on Team Obama for now. If Hillary goes against him, they will suddenly remember it all.
Speedwagon82 on April 12, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Hillary as SCOTUS? That’s a frightening prospect. There isn’t an honest or ethical bone in her body.
southsideironworks on April 12, 2010 at 1:49 PM
The nightmare the shook the world.Who ever floated this idea should be drawn and quartered .
thmcbb on April 12, 2010 at 1:50 PM
No, no, and H-E double toothpicks* no!!
*obscure TV reference
Tennman on April 12, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Leah Ward Sears? I could go for that.
katy the mean old lady on April 12, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Hillary would vote 98% the same as Stevens so it would make no noticable difference in court decisions. As far a qualifications are concerned Obama has already nominated one “unqualified” female to the court so why not make it two?
duff65 on April 12, 2010 at 2:13 PM
When I stop to think about it it is possible that Hillary would be more conservative than Stevens.
duff65 on April 12, 2010 at 2:16 PM
The real unanswered question though; would lorien hit it ?
Jeff2161 on April 12, 2010 at 2:16 PM
In a heartbeat.
katy the mean old lady on April 12, 2010 at 2:30 PM
Me thinks there’s a fly by the name of “Vince Foster,” and Fort Marcy Park in Hillary R. Clinton’s SCOTUS nomination ointment.
byteshredder on April 12, 2010 at 2:36 PM
Probably the best reason as to why it won’t happen…
right2bright on April 12, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Riiight.
Bill, who made a deal to admit lying under oath and lost his law license and was expressly disbarred by the SCOTUS would be a fantastic pick. Matched up against Roberts and Scalia? What evidence is there that Bill Clinton understands the law in any way? During his presidency time and again the Supreme Court found his administration’s arguments were wrong, wrong and wrong some more.
On the other hand, Hillary, the subject of this trial balloon, failed her DC bar exam back in the day and was found by her boss on the Watergate committee to be dishonest and unethical. Then we have White Water and her dishonest and unethical history there and the fact that she was almost indicted by the Special Prosecutor for more lies there.
Of course, it’s maddeningly true that none of these facts would matter a whit to “Look how nice we are!” Republicans and it’s true either Clinton would breeze through a confirmation hearing where if any R had even one item on their resume as these two would never (as they certainly ought not) be considered.
KittyLowrey on April 12, 2010 at 4:42 PM
Hillary for SCOTUS, then fill SOS with Steele. Like Hillary, Steele isn’t particularly diplomatic, but he’s a bro, so that should do it.
drfredc on April 12, 2010 at 5:29 PM
The clues are out there and being ignored.
Hilleary went to Arkansas because she failed the D.C. bar exam.
She worked on the Watergate Committee where her boss found her unethical and dishonest and declined to give her a recommendation.
She got positions in Arkansas thanks to the influence of her equally unethical and dishonest husband.
KittyLowrey on April 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM
And do we really need to remind of her tenure at the Rose Law Firm that is offered as a plus?
~eye roll~
KittyLowrey on April 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Validating one such as Hillary in this manner would be completely and utterly unacceptable (there’s been enough of that for both Clintons as it is) and while one could imagine some short-term strategic goal being achieved the long-term effects on this country would be devastating.
KittyLowrey on April 12, 2010 at 5:47 PM
Clinton won’t go for this side-line occupation. Think of the lack of publicity. The only time she’ll be in the news is when she makes predictable party-line rulings or when Barry wants to harangue the Court at the next State of the Union.
And what about the cackling from the bench? I don’t think so.
virgo on April 13, 2010 at 3:18 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2