Why not Clinton for Chief Justice?

Seeing his name on the previous post got me thinking.

He is qualified. We know he could do the job in his sleep. People love him. All over the world. Even during impeachment his popularity was high. Let Limbarf and the hate mongers try to denigrate him now.

Deal time? They get dirtbag Roberts and we get Bubba back.

The greatest consideration for the future of this nation and the world is going to be the question of the Gitmo detainees. I wouldn’t want to decide these cases, and there are, sadly, a scarce few people in the world that I would trust to get it right.

Who do you trust?

May be I just need a vacation or something, but I'm very worried.

.
No, not a problem. One need not be an attorney in order to sit on SCOTUS.

___________________

edited to add: No, William Jefferson Clinton was not disbarred. The state that held Clinton's license to practice law was Arkansas. And the Arkansas Supreme Court did NOT disbar Clinton; instead, the Arkansas Supreme Court revoked Clinton's license to practice law for 5 years. After those 5 years, he may request that Court to re-instate his license. Subsequent to that revokation, however, the SCOTUS removed his name from the list of lawyers who appear before the SCOTUS. After all, if his license to practice law was revoked, how could he appear b4 SCOTUS? He couldn't.

.

In any case, Renquist should have thrown it out.

Clinton wasn't under oath in the Grand Jury. The jury foreman wasn't there.

It's more of a political question.

.
Without rehashing all that is Clinton etc., there is NOTHING in the U.S. constituion that prohibits a non-lawyer from sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court and that would include any lawyer who has had his license to practice law revoked as was Clinton's. PERIOD.

.

He voluntarily surrendered his license to practice before the Supreme Court following a suspension.

His license in Arkansas was SUSPENDED for 5 years.

.
Clinton would be a superb U.S. Supreme Court justice; however, I'd rather go farther to the left and nominate ex-Governor Mario Cuomo. Damn, Cuomo would be excellent! He would sit within the same legal theory as did Marshall, Warren, Brennan, to name but a few.

____________________

edited to add: Of course, there's none other than that great legal constitutional scholar, Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who has written many scholarly textbooks for graduate and undergraduate students as well as the non-legal community. Tribe would be one of this nation's best choices to be seated on the SCOTUS. Indeed.
.

He's a political animal, always has been. He's most comfortable in front of a camera, shaking hands, being around people. I don't know if he would be happy spending entire days locked in his office, poring over stacks of legal documents.

She has incredible attention to detail, and she is sharp as a ginsu knife. Of course, she would be JUSTICE RODHAM, not Clinton, because that is the name on her Law Degree....!

hey I love the guy, I lived in upstate for a while, but WOW that

Religion is a large part ...


Where is Rome on the I/P issue? I feel like an idiot.

presently sitting on SCOTUS: Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas. There could be more. I could check but the point has been made that being a Roman Catholic does not prohibit one from sitting on our nation's highest court.

What do you mean by "I/P issue?"

The question is how much of a person are they going to be.

SCOTUS will decide. The I/P issue is important because it's a doctrine of non-equality. There's a pull to treat terrorists that way here. Someone wiser than me (I hope) is going to have to make some call on their access to the courts.

If it were up to me, I would say treat them the same as citizens, but for some reason that is not wise an I accept that.

The only point is that religion is important. A Jewish Chief Justice deciding the fate of Arab detainees would inflame the Arabs, for example. I don't give a shit about religion myself. It means nothing. Look at *. But perception is what a lot of politics is about.

I've said this following statement in other posts and I believe it is true. I don't think the Iraqi's were impressed when we took out Saadam. They will be impressed if we can tumble *. Good triumphing over evil and all. They will be watching. Who we choose will send them a message whether we like it or not. The message we send should be part of the calculous.

Nice man, brilliant scholar and a hell of a teacher. He'd be the best mind on the Court in ages. Not a chance it will ever happen.

was hoping the big dawg would go to the UN somehow, but see who we now have. Is that undoable? Soon?

:)

should go to the UN. I've always thought so.

TC

lifetime I lost all respect for him as a man after he lied about the Monica Lewinsky BJ.

I think Clinton would be a better U.N. Ambassador.

I'd like to see John Kerry on the Surpreme Court though. He was a pretty successful prosecuter.

but I also think we're dreaming, which is nice to do.

But the odds of Clinton, Cuomo, or Kerry being nominated is close to zero, IMO, unfortunately.

(I still don't get what the "I/P" issue means, ie what is "I" and what is "P")

The Israeli/Palestine issue. In a peaceful world it would not be a conflict, but would become an issue. Mainly a legal/religious clusterfurball. It is showing up on our doorstep via the Gitmo guys.

It is a fact (not theory or opinion) that Roberts (a bigot) cannot unball, unfur, or uncluster this mess. After reading this thread, I think I do trust Hillary and Kerry. Political acumen will be required.

There have been ex-Presidents that became Chief Justices, I think.

Why on earth would * nominate Clinton for the SCOTUS? Its like asking President Clinton (in 1993) to nominate Bush 41 for the SCOTUS. Bush 43 may be an idiot, but he is not going to flog his base by nominating a democrat, especially Bill Clinton. Hell, why he is at it, maybe Bush should nominate both Bill and Hillary to take the two vacant spots on the court.

be a Democrat back in the White House before the end of Clinton, Kerry, and Cuomo's lives.

I wish Cuomo would have taken the job in 1993 when Clinton offered it to him. Cuomo vs. Scalia, that would have been great.

I believe that disqualifies him from being nominated at all to any court.

But, I could be wrong.

TC

which has since expired.

As I said, I could be wrong...

TC

please stop.

Must be some first class stuff.

Even if the POTUS was a Democrat, Clinton would be a poor choice due to age and health. You want someone that can last a lot of years on the bench.

.

til the Clintons get off the stage, the Democratic party will continue to be hobbled by them. They stagnate the party and prevent fresh voices and renewed purpose from taking hold.

but hasn't one of the big complaints about other judicial nominees been political ties and their past records? John Roberts has donated to *, Janice Rogers Brown decided this or that. Are these actually important to people or is this just something to complain about? Bill & Hillary, and as someone mentioned, John Kerry, all clearly have political ties to a party, and none of them have any record at all (as far as judicial history from the bench) so we'd really have no way of knowing how they'd really vote. They are career politicians who, like all career politicians, continually do things for political reasons. I would prefer to try to keep anyone (of any political stripe) who does things for political reasons off the supreme court. IMHO, Politics should not be the job of the SCOTUS.

that's why.

Logic and qualifications have absolutely nothing to do with it.