Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Have You Been to Line Out Late... | She Said What? »

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Hillary’s Next Move

posted by on February 26 at 15:56 PM

To the Supreme Court, says Sullivan—and President Obama should put here there.

Jeff Rosen explains why the Dems have a shortage of SCOTUS candidates ready on Day One. It’s as good a time as any to repeat my own suggestion. A president Obama should offer the first SCOTUS vacancy to Senator Clinton. It’s perfect for her: she gets to lord it over others, she’s a sharp lawyer, it appeals to her vanity, she doesn’t have to get elected, and as a sitting senator, she’d be a shoo-in. The base would love it.

I love it. How about you, Sloggers?

RSS icon Comments


Jesus. Pleas proof read your posts, Dan.

Posted by johnnie | February 26, 2008 4:01 PM

Works for me too.

Posted by Sean | February 26, 2008 4:02 PM

I approve.

Posted by Aislinn | February 26, 2008 4:03 PM

Anything that drives Antonin Scalia closer to the day of his cerebral hemmorhage is okay by me.

Posted by NapoelonXIV | February 26, 2008 4:04 PM

Too old.

Posted by Cyclist | February 26, 2008 4:05 PM

Sadly, no.

She'd be the one who'd drive us all nuts by always siding with the right-wing nutcases to prove how tough she is.

She'd make Tony Scalia look like Daffy freakin' Duck.

Posted by Original Andrew | February 26, 2008 4:07 PM

Yeah, do it.

Posted by J.R. | February 26, 2008 4:09 PM

That would be great!

Posted by Suz | February 26, 2008 4:09 PM

I won't rest until she is Space Pope.

Posted by michael strangeways | February 26, 2008 4:11 PM

Here come da judge...but how many years is she obligated to stay there? ;)

Posted by flipW | February 26, 2008 4:14 PM

Would be great...but would she get enough votes from senate Republicans to get confirmed?

Posted by 4d | February 26, 2008 4:20 PM

I think it would be a terrific idea, one that I've been telling friends for weeks. I think a seat on SCOTUS would be perfect for Hillary's skill set. She's brilliant. I just don't want her "lording" over me in the Oval Office.

Posted by Eames Chair | February 26, 2008 4:21 PM

I suggested this a month ago. I think she'd be an outstanding justice.

Posted by Fnarf | February 26, 2008 4:23 PM

the problem with the SCOTUS is get to retire into a pine box.

she's fine as Senator. its a way easier job.

Posted by max solomon | February 26, 2008 4:25 PM

How is she qualified to be a Justice? Because everyone here seems to like her opinions on things? She has never been a judge, she has only marginal background in legal scholarship, and she has never shown that she is willing to interpret the Constitution in any way other than what she WANTS it to be.

Remember when Harriet Fucking Meirs was being considered by Bush and how everyone here flipped a motherfucking wig about it? How is this any different except for POV on Constitutional issues?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 26, 2008 4:25 PM

I'd like Lani Guinier. Brilliant legal scholar, and she would really piss of those Xtian reconstructionists on the court. A black female civil rights lawyer and professor. She'd be awesome.

Posted by Tlazolteotl | February 26, 2008 4:26 PM

I agree, Sen Clinton will make a great US Supreme Court Justice.

Now, who else to appoint? That's my question ... it's a lifetime appointment.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 26, 2008 4:26 PM

Dan, what #1 said... "...and President Obama should put HERE there." Think you meant "her"

Posted by Fitz | February 26, 2008 4:27 PM

Make it a two-fer ... Hill and Bill both on SCOTUS.

Posted by N in Seattle | February 26, 2008 4:29 PM

i like it. she's smart and knows her shit, but she's a god awful politician. she can put her knowledge and skills to good use without having to worry about impressing / not insulting the electorate.

Posted by brandon | February 26, 2008 4:36 PM

No. Flag burning amendment.

Posted by DOUG. | February 26, 2008 4:39 PM

Disclaimer. I am a lawyer.

I've heard worse ideas. And the fact that several republicans have not had the following experience doesn't make it ok.

I'd much prefer someone with a more varied civil background (#15 - she did have significant practice in the private sector), and someone who had actually run a trial court. The scholarchip angle bothers me less - that's what clerks are for.

And she'd never get confirmed in a million billion years.

But I've heard worse.

Posted by rtm | February 26, 2008 4:44 PM

Wait! That was going to be MY fucking Supreme Court seat!

Plus, Hillary said Bill Clinton wasn't responsible for all the bad stuff in NAFTA; Bill "inherited" it from GHW Bush and had to live with it. And she said her Iraq war vote wasn't really a vote for war. And her border fence vote wasn't really a vote to build a border fence. Come to think of it, is she even qualified to vote on bills in the Senate?

Posted by elenchos | February 26, 2008 4:46 PM

I want her for our first female Senate Majority Leader. The wingnuts' heads would explode, with women heading both houses of Congress, and an African-American President. I think she'd be much more effective as majority leader than Reid has been.

Posted by Geni | February 26, 2008 4:48 PM

With a lifetime appointment, perhaps she could finally put her inclinations to pander - the same terrible inclinations that lead her, in the worst case, to things like the flag burning amendment DOUG@21 mentions - on the shelf forever, and do what she really thinks.

I could see it.

Posted by tsm | February 26, 2008 4:52 PM

@19: Bill's been disbarred. He gave up his SCOTUS future to make his perjury charges disappear.

Posted by CG | February 26, 2008 4:52 PM

rtm, I think there have only been a handful or worse ideas, none of which actually were carried to fruition. When was the last time she actually practiced law, when was the last time she wasn't used merely to attract clientèle?

She isn't qualified to be a justice except for having a similar view point to almost everyone on slog. Judges, if anything, should be elected on experience, scholarship, and everything but having people agree with her ideals as a politician. and I dont think anyone here could make the case that they truly want her there because she knows her shit when it comes to law(because there are more qualified people out there), but because they agree with her politically on several issues. They want Clinton to make a point and that is the worst reason to be on the Supreme Court.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 26, 2008 4:54 PM

No -- Hillary should become Majority Leader for life. Harry Reid's not helping his case.

Posted by Nat | February 26, 2008 4:56 PM


Toss in Bill Richardson as VP, and you have two women, an African-American, and an Hispanic in the top 4 seats of power in the country.

Posted by NaFun | February 26, 2008 4:59 PM

Absolutely not. She has shown incredibly poor judgment on just about every important decision she had to make.

I say challenge her senate seat in the next primary and let her retire with Bill and their millions.

Posted by ghostlawns | February 26, 2008 5:00 PM

A black robe would definitely be an improvement over those hideous pantsuits.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | February 26, 2008 5:10 PM

if it helps us uphold Roe v. Wade I'm all for it.

Posted by angelfish | February 26, 2008 5:15 PM

@22 Why wouldn't she get confirmed? The Gang of 14 will vote for her and that should put it over 60 after the next election. And if they don't, it's the nuclear option with the shoe on the other foot--D's demanding an up or down vote and R's filibustering. I'd love watching the filibustering R's being fed their own "up or down vote" speeches by Jon Stewart every night.

@26 And I also don't think Bill Clinton is disqualified by being disbarred, is he? As long as he meets the Constitutional requirements and is appointed and confirmed...

Posted by Mark at YVR | February 26, 2008 5:49 PM

@19 - but Bill is a white guy - I think it should be Hill, Lani, and then Richardson ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 26, 2008 6:00 PM

@16, love the idea of Lani Guinier on the court. Spit in the eye of those Hard right wingers on the court. An appointment that would give Scalia a coronary:)

Posted by neo-realist | February 26, 2008 6:11 PM

1. She has a J.D. And a lifetime of law-making/legal experience. That's plenty in my book. Remember that Earl Warren was the Governor of California and had never held any judicial role before becoming Chief Justice, and one of the greatest Justices of all time. Many former Justices were politicians and practicing attorneys without ever sitting on the bench prior to the SC.
2. The Republicans would filibuster her, so the Dems must have at least 60 senators to invoke closure, probably more because moderate dems might revolt at the idea of Justice Clinton.
3. Clinton is supremely qualified, and Harriet Miers was really quite qualified, but that will be an attack launch against her, and the media/public would likely take the bait. However, remember that Miers was torpedoed not by the Dems, but by her own party. Furthermore, Clinton has a much better pedigree than Miers, even if she hasn't been a judge.

Posted by Ruby | February 26, 2008 6:11 PM

To support her, I need to know what her method of constitutional interpretation is. Keep in mind that the likely SC openings are going to come from the liberal block, not the young, conservative block. So, the best we can do over the several years is hold serve. The next appointment can swing the Court the wrong way.

And, yes. I say this because I want to be assured that she will be likely to rule in accord with my beliefs.

Posted by California | February 26, 2008 6:47 PM

No on the SCOTUS.

Obama needs to make her Secretary of State!!!

Posted by grace | February 26, 2008 7:22 PM

SCOTUS? SOS? What're you smoking?

How about 1000 hours of community service for the flag-burning amendment, 500 for the Iran vote, and 5000 for the Iraq vote, then let her teach civics to 8th graders.

Posted by bill | February 26, 2008 7:38 PM

Such a backhanded compliment for Clinton. Sullivan can't even get through a paragraph without disparaging her- "lord it", "vanity." Same station, same shit.

President Clinton will definitely consult with Vice President Obama when the time comes to fill a SCOTUS vacancy.

Posted by Big Sven | February 26, 2008 7:52 PM

very funny @40. If she doesn't get elected, I was hoping she would become the next teddy K and stay for another generation.

Posted by LMSW | February 26, 2008 8:31 PM

I certainly think Hillary's qualified for the court: Yale Law, Law Professor, Watergate Hearings, Partner at a large law firm, Children's Defence Fund and U.S. Senator. Recently there's been this idea that Supreme Court has to be composed of Appellete Court Judges... historically this hasn't been the case (look at Earl Warren). It might be good for the Court to have someone outside the legal monastary who has wide-ranging experience– especially political experience


I agree with #5– she's too old. However, from the article Sullivan links to it appears that most of the Democratic Farm Team is around the same age. So if they can get someone younger, appoint them. If they can't, why not Hillary?

Posted by Jacob | February 26, 2008 8:41 PM


Posted by Eldred, Bitches | February 26, 2008 9:00 PM

What the fuck is all of this shit about her being too old? She's 60 for fuck's sake, she'll turn 61 on the same day I turn 43. Let's say she's appointed and serves on the court until she's 72, that's 11 years. Now, if you think this is a good idea why wouldn't you want Hillary on the court for 11 years versus some of the other members of the Democratic farm team? Would you rather have a good judge for 11 years or a shitty judge for 20?

We need to fix the Supreme Court. We should increase the number of justices to 11 and give each of them a staggered 22 year term. That way a retirement comes due ever two years, meaning that each president would get to pick two Supreme Court justices (we'd have to figure out what to do in the case of a death to keep things balanced). Doing this would do a lot to remove the excessive partisanship from court appointments and would also eliminate the phenomenon of senile judges hanging on long after they should have retired (Blackmun, Marshall, Rehnquist, etc).

I'd like to see more politicians appointed to the court. Let's face it, the court is already political and as others have pointed out some of the best justices were elected officials before they were appointed to the Court. Earl Warren comes to mind (Jim Newton's book "Justice for All - Earl Warren And The Nation He Made" is brilliant) and there's also William Howard Taft and Charles Evans Hughes. I can't imagine any of them citing 24 like Wop Tony Scalia did as being relevant to Constitutional jurisprudence.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | February 26, 2008 9:32 PM

I could totally dig a Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton.

The republicans would shit themselves at the idea. Unless the Democrats manage to pull of a supermajority, she has no hope of ever being confirmed.

More realistically, she'd make a good Majority Leader. Harry Ried has been a disgrace.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | February 26, 2008 9:48 PM

Didn't I say exactly the same thing about Hillary last week?

Jeez, am I smart or what?

Posted by catalina vel-duray | February 26, 2008 9:56 PM

That's exactly how Lincoln got rid of his chief rival for the 1864 republican nomination, former Gov, Sen, and Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase of Ohio. Apparently this sort of thing happens from time to time.

Posted by historically speaking | February 26, 2008 10:17 PM

I'm not really seeing it, though it would be awesome if she could haul back and pimp-slap Clarence Thomas.

Posted by Greg | February 26, 2008 10:36 PM

I'd rather she be president.

Posted by idaho | February 26, 2008 11:55 PM

Obamamania will fizzle long before the election so the suggestion is a fairy tale. George McGovern like disaster, with a candiate that is truly unqualified

Posted by Joebob | February 27, 2008 12:52 AM

If she can't be Pres, then I want her to be Vice Pres. So does every other schmoe when interviewed on npr, pdq, asap.

Being a Supreme means getting votes from the Repubs, and how does anyone think that'll happen? Hell has not yet frozen over.

Posted by sheila | February 27, 2008 2:46 AM

Hillary's age is obviously her big problem. The entire point of Rosen's article is that the field is so thin because there aren't many young liberal judges. Rosen even suggests Sotomayor and Wardlaw (by far the best choices for nominees) are too old.

I think Hillary would make an excellent Justice, but I don't necessarily see the long term benefit in appointing a woman of her age, particularly when there are extremely good younger choices -- who are also women and also Hispanic (see Wardlaw and Sotomayor.) I hate that we even have to THINK about the age of justices, but she's older than Roberts, Alito AND Thomas. So that's just a fact.

Posted by Joshua | February 27, 2008 8:25 AM

That won't happen.

A. She'd never get confirmed.
B. She wouldn't take it because she will run for president again.
C. I would rather John Edwards be given a SCOTUS spot and I don't even like him all that much.

But still, I guess my main problem is I think SCOTUS is already bordering on being way too politically motivated as it is

Posted by monkey | February 27, 2008 8:49 AM

Don't count her out yet folks.

Posted by President-ette | February 27, 2008 12:10 PM

Those saying she wouldn't get confirmed are forgetting about what an insular society the Senate is. Senatorial "courtesy" votes cross the party lines all the time. I do not believe the Senate would Bork one of their own.

Posted by Geni | February 27, 2008 1:08 PM
If she doesn't get elected, I was hoping she would become the next teddy K and stay for another generation.

You and me both, LMSW@41.

Posted by Big Sven | February 27, 2008 10:32 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).