The Hillary for SCOTUS thread

[javero]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 7:53am

Yea or nay, let's discuss please.

Gotta admit that I'm warming to the idea. A Republican friend calls a Hillary nomination the nuclear option.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 8:04am

With her, he wins by a landslide.

Without her, he loses. Or we have another of those ugly 50-49 nailbiters, subject to fraud and voter intimidation from the Republicans in the swing states, and a possible loss to McCain, even though no one really likes or wants him.

[romantico]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 8:42am

Can she be both VP and SCOTUS?

I hope Pal Joey is right, I just think Obama is going to overlook her and do as the DNC says. Ignore her numbers, followers,popularity, and strengths and pick someone else. Chuck Hagel has said he wants the VP and Obama may consider this as an attempt to unite.(he would be wrong because most Republicans do not like Hagel) Barack, nominate Hillary as VP and get on with it. The sooner you unite the party the better.

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 9:08am

I think she'd be great on the SCOTUS. I don't know about VP. I think the Obama camp is going to make a deliberate decision on their chances with vs without her. They've proven to be a savvy group, particularly with major decisions. I think the drawback are vetting the library finances and governing with Bill hangin' around.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 10:06am

After the campaign she ran she can not expect ANY role in an Obama administration.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 10:09am

Pish-tosh. Campaigns are just politics.

Obama understands that even if his thin-skinned, misogynistic, hysterical and vindictive supporters do not.

Hillary will be VPOTUS and the ticket will unite the Democratic Party to victory.

[javero]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 10:46am

"Hillary will be VPOTUS and the ticket will unite the Democratic Party to victory."

I think everyone is overlooking Richards as Veep. We are truly living in the last days when I wanna see Hillary sworn in as an Associate Justice of the SCOTUS. I just don't trust anyone else at the moment joining that August body.

Defenders of individual rights and progressives simply cannot lose ground in the culture war. This nation is now run by a select few omnipotent defense contractors, oil companies, lobbying firms, Jesus Freaks and think tanks.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 10:50am

"his thin-skinned, misogynistic, hysterical and vindictive supporters do not."

Isn't it the HILLARY supporters you're thinking of?
Harriet, the face of the Clinton campaign

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 11:00am

No because she has no idea of why the law is the way it is. She's the one that wanted to do away with the Electoral College.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 11:08am

I suggested this a month or two ago.

I think she would be more moderate than some fear, and would be a good addition to the court.

I would like to see her as VP, but I would be happy with her as SCOTUS.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 11:36am

javero, wtf am i? chopped liver? i've been saying and saying and saying that it's richardson. what? since i'm a republican it doesn't count? that's cold.

i think he should begin publicly referring to the idea of hillary on the supreme court on the campaign trail. i think it should be mentioned everyday from now until election day.

because those forces that worked against her so hard for so long would have no problem with her getting a lifetime appointment. none.

[javero]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 11:40am

"She's the one that wanted to do away with the Electoral College."

Conventions come and go. US Senators no longer move up the ranks from their respective state houses. Unlike Scalia and Thomas, some Americans feel that the Constitution will always be a work-in-progress. As visionary as the Founding Fathers were, they could not have envisioned the ethical issues that advances in science, medicine and technology place before the public today.

There are still some amongst us who firmly believe that it's a sin for a married couple to plan pregnancy.

[southernboy]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 1:07pm

I HIGHLY doubt that a person who came close to securing a nomination during an election year practically guaranteed to put a Democrat in the White House would settle for even a lifetime appointment that doesn't have the word Chief in front of it.
For all of those people who like to trot out the unmitigated ego Clinton supposedly has, I'm surprised you wouldn't think this of her.

[Chance]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 1:13pm

Can she be both VP and SCOTUS?

At the same time? No, a person can not serve in 2 different branches of government at the same time which is why in the event a speaker of the house were to make it to president (through line of succession) he or she would have to be resign as speaker first.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 1:15pm

Excuse me but the Vice President is in two different branches of the government at once. That's why he's immune from subpoenas, oversight, record keeping requirements, whatever he can think of.

[Chance]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 1:16pm

hahahaha

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 1:19pm

With the White House asserting executive privilege in its refusal to let aides testify in the congressional investigation of the firings of federal prosecutors, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office has suggested that he is not actually a member of the executive branch in explaining his refusal to disclose the amount of his office’s classification or declassification of material.

“Well, the job of the vice president is an interesting one, because you've got a foot in both the executive and the legislative branch,’’ Cheney said in an interview with CBS Radio today.

“Obviously, I've got an office in the West Wing of the White House, I'm an advisor of the president, I sit as a member of the National Security Council,’’ Cheney said. “At the same time, under the Constitution, I have legislative responsibilities.

“I'm actually paid by the Senate, not by the executive,’’ he said. “I sit as the president of the Senate, as the presiding officer in the Senate. I cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate. So the vice president is kind of a unique creature, if you will, in that you've got a foot in both branches.'

The Swamp

[javero]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 1:20pm

Those judicial appointments have major impact on all our lives arguably more so than even POTUS which is a 2-term gig. Those folks are in a league of their own. Justice Clinton has a nice ring to it.

[romantico]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 4:58pm

She won't VP (Pal Joey, I REALLY did want to believe)

"The former national chairman of the Democratic Party who ran Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign this year told 200 Democratic activists in Fairfax County Tuesday that Virginia Governor Tim Kaine would be his party's best choice as Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate.

In a Bill and Hillary Clinton camp loaded with steadfast loyalists, few stand out as strongly and as forcefully as Terry McAuliffe -- who is a Clinton diehard (both Bill and Hillary) as they come. He's the money raiser par excellance for them, campaign manager, former Chair of the DNC at Bill Clinton's behest, etc.

So when he tells a group of Virginia Dems that Kaine would be the best VP for Obama, he is revealing that Senator Hillary Clinton is not going to get the nod. It's a very telling acknowledgement in the season of VP speculation, and particularly whether Clinton has a chance on a "Unity" ticket.

Let's be crystal clear, as they say, McAuliffe and the rest of the Clinton staff fought tenaciously to the last moment to try and secure the nomination. McAuliffe would not be touting another VP candidate if he though Hillary had a chance. Period.

You just don't do that with the Clintons. You fight till the last dog dies for a Clinton."

http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3335:mcauliffe-touts-kaine-for-v-p-in-fairfax-talk&catid=13:news-stories&Itemid=76

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/437

[javero]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 6:09pm

"The fact that we've opened 33 offices around the state should remove all doubt" about how important Virginia is perceived to be for winning the election, he said. "We've leased them all through November," he added.

The Dems will flip VA blue, I tell ya!

McGain is sweating bullets over the prospect of having to take on Obama and Libertarian topdog Bob Barr in Barr's home state of GA this Nov.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 7:03pm

I HIGHLY doubt that a person who came close to securing a nomination during an election year practically guaranteed to put a Democrat in the White House would settle for even a lifetime appointment that doesn't have the word Chief in front of it.

Um, Chief Justice Hillary Clinton?


I said this months ago as well and the original poster said it was out of the question...

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 7:07pm

John Roberts would have to leave the court for her to become Chief Justice.

I think papa and javero have the right idea in Bill Richardson being the running mate. He would draw in the Hispanic populations that largely voted for Clinton in the primaries.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 7:55pm

Yeah, that's what I was questioning. They don't give the title to newbies, so it would be useless to hold out for that position.

Updated On: 7/25/08 at 07:55 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 8:50pm

You can still be pretty powerful without being Chief Justice.

Hell, Kennedy is the swing vote on many cases right now. He is more powerful than Roberts.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/25/08 at 9:08pm

"They don't give the title to newbies, so it would be useless to hold out for that position." Sure they do- you can be appointed chief justice with being a sitting justice. But barring an act of a lesbian feminist God, Roberts will hold that seat a long time.