Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

_Justice_ Clinton?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
markbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 05:48 AM
Original message
_Justice_ Clinton?
From today's Washington Post OpEd page by James Miller:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052001571.html

<--snip-->
Opponents counter that in terms of the electoral vote, Clinton might not help carry any states that wouldn't already go for Obama. Moreover, the possibility of both Clintons ganging up on a President Obama could make life more difficult for him than anything the Republicans could ever put together.

But there is another way to foster party unity without forcing a political marriage.

It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy. Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one.

<--snip-->

He does have a point. As a member of SCOTUS Hillary could have an influence lasting decades.
(...and it would be worth it just to watch Scalia's head explode)

--MAB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is the scenario I've been wanting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Why? Of all the potential justices, Hillary qualifications are scant, at best
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Because it will continue to be an important by-line to this election
Edited on Wed May-21-08 07:54 AM by mmonk
and its historical importance and thus her legacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. That I would love to see!
Her on the SCOTUS up against Fat Tony Scalia. That would be worthy of pay per view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Window Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 05:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. I think Hillary would make a great justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 05:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. one problem: She failed the DC bar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. And retook it and passed
which happens quite frequently
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dems_rightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. No requirements
Actually, at least in theory, there's no requirements for becoming a Supreme Court justice, other than being appointed and confirmed. One needn't even have a law degree, though it would be mighty difficult to get confirmed without one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. There is no way in hell
that the VRWC and Fox-jazeera would ever allow her on the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. qualifications?
Remember the squealing over Harriet Miers????

What are Hillary's qualifications to be a judge on the SCOTUS? Being an Arkansas lawyer in private practice for a few years? Being the First Lady for years and years? Being a Senator? When is the last time she even worked as a lawyer?

Give me a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
8. She's not qualified by a long, long way, to be on the SC, and she's untrustworthy
I have no reason to believe she would be any better than Sandra Day O'Connor was on most issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 06:16 AM
Response to Original message
9. oh come on, she is not qualified by any stretch of the imagination.
Edited on Wed May-21-08 06:19 AM by bowens43
she either knows nothing about Constitutional law or she has no respect for the Constitution. Supreme Court Justice is not a consolation prise for the loser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ccharles000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
10. I would love her to be on the SC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Azathoth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
12. The Supreme Court is not a consolation prize for defeated politicians
There are hundreds of progressive jurists and Constitutional scholars is this country who are qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Hillary ain't one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
14. NNNNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!!


no.

no.

no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
15. I'd get someone about 10 or 15 years younger.
She's what, 60, 61? Hell, that Roberts automaton was 49 or 50 when he was made Chief Justice.

He's gonna do a SHITLOAD of damage over the next few decades...I'd like to see someone at least as young as he was to counterbalance him.

Jesus, wasn't Clarence Thomas in his early 40s????

What a clusterfuck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ekwhite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
17. Works for me. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC