HILLARY FOR OBAMA'S FIRST SUPREME COURT OPENING

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Obama should nominate Hillary for his first Supreme Court opening.

It allows Hillary to withdraw from this race with grace (read Peggy Noonan in today's Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)

This allows Hillary to have a significant life-time appointment that prevents Bill's interference (he's disbarred and the other Court members would not be swayed by his buttonholing them).

Hillary would be among colleagues at the Court who would appreciate and relish her intellect and her vigorous legal arguments, and she'd feel she was making a lasting contribution to the country's future, and to its history, by upholding the rights of those she has fought for over the course of her life in her legal opinions for the court. She would take very seriously her mission to interpret law according to the Constitution and in the country's most elevated academic setting, her talents would shine.

[dkf]

1. You think she could get through the Senate?

That would be a battle royale.

[TexasObserver]

13. No. She's no more Supreme Court material than Harriet Miers.

[BluegrassDem]

2. That's a great idea! Hillary would be perfect for the Court

I love to have her on the Court.

[TexasObserver]

10. Hillary would be terrible. Hillary Patriot Act? Hillary torture? Hell No.

She is untrustworthy of having such a position. Get a real lawyer, one who actually knows some law.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. At age 60, hell no

The next Supreme Court nominee (if appointed by a Democratic President) should not be over 50 years old. And if John McCain gets to make the next appointment the Democratic Controlled Senate should tell him that he can't appoint anybody younger than he is.

I don't think people realize how much older Ginsburg is than Roberts and Alito and the ramifications of that.

[TexasObserver]

16. Isn't she 68 or 69? I know she's older than Bill, and he's over 60.

Either way, she's too old to get put on the court, even if she weren't a lousy choice and unqualified.

[Qutzupalotl]

19. Oh, I thought she was 44.

Don't know where I got that idea.

[TexasObserver]

20. That's her height in inches, that 44 number

[Metric System]

4. Peggy Noonan? Seriously?!? n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. TOO OLD!

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Good scenario.

After Obama succeeds her in 2016, she won't want a demotion, so a post on the SCOTUS would be excellent.

And we can add Bill, too, although the GOP wants him for the Commissioner of Baseball.

After Obama leaves in 2024, he can also find a place on the bench. He is an outstanding legal scholar.

What an era -- 2008 until 2024, with a long-term SCOTUS presence!

--p!

[mkultra]

8. despite your sarcasm

i woudl say that either way, we could be in for a nice long exhale

[Dogmudgeon]

24. Sarcasm? No, indeed!

I actually DO consider the scenario to be "pretty good". Even a 16-year period of Democratic dominance could re-make this country. I do not consider Hillary to be a she-devil, nor do I consider Obama to be the next Elmer Gantry.

A combined effort could win this country back to the Democratic side, which is why I am hopeful for a Clinton/Obama ticket. It would also give Barack Obama 16 years holding some form of executive power, the ability to grow into the job, and cultivate literally thousands of people who are young today. The impact would last well into the late century; a young attorney hired in the last year of this hypothetical Obama presidency in 2024 could conceivably be on the high court into the 2080s or 2090s.

--p!

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Don't we already have enough pro-corporate justices? nt

[TexasObserver]

11. There's already five Republican justices.

Actually six, but who counts Souter as Republican any more?

[TexasObserver]

9. Absolutely NOT!! John Edwards!!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

12. I'd like to see John Edwards as Atty General

the repugs would pee in their pants out of fear.

I am truly sorry that he dropped out of the race, there are many causes for that, (money, the media, etc) but he would have made a GREAT president.

[TexasObserver]

14. Not me. The SC is much better for him. It's lifetime. It's real.

AG serves at the pleasure of the president, works for the president. It's a temporary job. SC is forever. If you want John to make policy, which I do, put him on the court.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. How about AG for three years, then a kick up to the supremes, just

before his/her term ends?

On 2nd thought, he would (I hope) make too many enemies in those three years to ever get congressional approval.

Yeah. SC, right off the bat.

[TexasObserver]

21. I want John Edwards on the SC more than any other person.

You're talking about a guy who understands well all the major substantive and procedural issues that the Supreme Court shapes. He will be one of the great ones, and probably sit for 30 Years.

You want Edwards to make a lasting impact? SC all the way. I would love that. Putting John on the court would put a permanent bug up the ass of every corporatist in America.

[Unsane]

15. She hasn't practiced law in years.

And is 60 years old. We can do better.

[TexasObserver]

17. and she wasn't much of lawyer then ... doesn't know anything about

litigation. And hasn't seen a courthouse ever.

Just because she went to law school forty years ago and just because she worked for Walmart for a few years doesn't give her the knowledge or skills to be a SC judge.

She doesn't have to be promised anything, and shouldn't be. See whether she helps or not, and then see what she deserves.

[sfam]

26. Then how did she get listed as one of the top 100 lawyers in the country?

Was this done by a payoff? Is that what you're implying? I dunno - seems to me that someone who gets this type of honorarium by her peers might in fact be a fairly decent lawyer...

[sandnsea]

22. It's not the first woman President

I wouldn't take it if I were her. Nothing like being the first woman President.

[TexasObserver]

23. She's not going to get that choice.

If she's the nominee of the party, there probably won't be any Democrats added to the Supreme Court the next four years, because McCain will making the appointments.

She will lose to McCain, and take down with her thousands of Democrats on the ballot below her.

But you're right. She shouldn't be on the Supreme Court because she's unqualified to be on the Supreme Court and lacks any of the commitments to ideals that we need in Supreme Court justices. Besides, she could never confirmed by the senate.

There's always President of Wellesley College, for which she is qualified.

[sfam]

25. I LOVE this idea! Assuming Obama wins and Hillary is for it...

We're gonna keep the senate seat in NY, so this is fairly intriguing.

[Renew Deal]

27. One word: Fillibuster

Never going to happen.

[hedgehog]

28. I'm not certain her finances could stand the kind of vetting that they

would see if she were nominated.