Executive Branch
Supreme Court Shot for Hillary Clinton?
Posted May 21, 2008 6:36 PM CST
By Martha Neil
As Barack Obama slowly but surely takes a definitive lead in the Democratic primary, there's another option he could pursue to put opponent Hillary Clinton on his team as she gamely continues her seeming losing battle for the presidential nomination.
"It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy," a Washington Post guest writer points out in a much-read opinion piece today. "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."
Even if Obama could persuade Clinton to accept a second-place position on a joint ticket, she would be a significant addition to the Supreme Court because of her intelligence, tenacity and expected liberal viewpoint, especially compared to some of the court's sitting justices, according to James Andrew Miller, who served as an aide to former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker Jr., a Republican.
"President Obama would engender praise (at least from Democrats) at the prospect of Hillary going toe to toe with Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito," Miller writes. "Clinton's gumption and determination might make her one of the most powerful forces ever on the court, particularly when it comes to swaying other justices when the court is closely divided."
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
msg
May 22, 2008 7:28 AM CST
Next to her being president, my worst nightmare.
Flag this comment
MGW
May 22, 2008 9:34 AM CST
While she may have “gumption and determination,” she has no where near the intellectual horsepower necessary to go “toe to toe with Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.” She would get crushed and be exposed for the intellectual fraud she is.
Flag this comment
pamela
May 23, 2008 6:00 AM CST
On the contrary, this is an excellent idea.
Flag this comment
ABC
May 23, 2008 6:08 AM CST
Aren’t we lucky that the American people will never—repeat never—elect Barak Hussein Obama president. So you see, there is no cause to worry that Hillary “spider woman” Clinton will ever be nominated to the Supreme Court.
Flag this comment
JPB
May 23, 2008 6:25 AM CST
The best of her legal resume is that she was on law review at Yale and then was a law school professor at the University of Arkansas (exactly - I never heard of it either) and suddenly she’s qualified to sit on the bench of SCOTUS?? Give me a break…. This would be a Harriet Meiers nomination all over again.
Flag this comment
SC
May 23, 2008 6:41 AM CST
JPB - Strangely (and perhaps sadly) there have been even less “paper pretty” nominees who’ve managed to sit the Court. We can always cross our fingers on the vetting process.
ABC - You may very well be right in a world where exit polls are increasingly showing that even staunch southern democrats would likely choose McCain over Obama, in large part because his name is Barak Hussein Obama and he’s half african-american. Agree with his politics or not, isn’t that an unfortunate commentary for the U.S. in the 21st century?
Flag this comment
LS
May 23, 2008 6:56 AM CST
I think it would be a good idea too. But what would the nomination process make of the fact that she failed the DC bar exam after law school?
Flag this comment
N'Awlins
May 23, 2008 7:00 AM CST
I find it difficult to predict exactly what voters will do, considering that Bush got elected in 2000 & reelected in 2004.
Flag this comment
Filo
May 23, 2008 7:07 AM CST
She has never been a state or federal judge. There is nothing to indicate she can craft a wise judicial opinion. Her entire career has been as a partisan, not as a judge objectively applying law.
Flag this comment
Gideon Newmark
May 23, 2008 7:12 AM CST
I think Hillary might rub the conservative justices the wrong way. They claim to have personable relationships with those they disagree with, but Hillary isn’t just someone conservatives disagree with, she’s their antichrist. I would be interested to see whether they’re big enough people to get past that. Though for what it’s worth, Hillary on the Supreme Court is probably about as likely as Hillary as the vice president (i.e. not at all).
Flag this comment
L.F. Giordano
May 23, 2008 7:17 AM CST
Candidates for the Supreme Court should be brilliant, morally upright, dedicated to our country over themselves, respectful of the law and precedent and experienced in life. In my opinion, the politics of the candidate—liberal or conservative—are less important if the other factors are met. Mrs. Clinton simply is not qualified for a Supreme Court seat and any person who would base a SCOTUS appointment primarily upon friendship or political expediency is unqualified to make a SCOTUS nomination. That goes for a President Bush and his silly nomination of Harriet Meiers and it would go for a Barak Obama nomination of Hillary Clinton. Americans deserve better.
Flag this comment
Davis
May 23, 2008 7:29 AM CST
I think some of you are forgetting some of our previous Supreme Court Justices. Remember Chief Justice Taft? Yes the one who was president before that. He wasn’t a judge either. She is incredibly qualified. I would love to see both her and Bill on the Supreme Court.
Flag this comment
Jade
May 23, 2008 7:30 AM CST
This is just conjecture. There is NO WAY she would be on the Supreme Court and no rationale for it. The way she has behaved during this time is utterly absurd and Barack should offer he NOTHING.
Flag this comment
Rick
May 23, 2008 7:45 AM CST
What a horrendous idea.
Flag this comment
George
May 23, 2008 7:46 AM CST
Could she REALLY have a chance of getting through the senate? They’ll need to pick up quite a few seats. Clearly experience is lacking. While there have been nominees long ago that had not had typical qualifications we see today, I think (HOPE) that time is past and judges will have to have either strong judicial or teaching credentials.
Flag this comment
MereMortal
May 23, 2008 7:54 AM CST
The comment by George suggesting she couldn’t get through the Senate is politically tone deaf. The well understood rule of D.C. is that a sitting Senator is the easiest to confirm, and, even if you don’t want to believe it, Hillary has been a well liked member of the Senatorial “club.”. The only problem is the oddball fact about the D.C. bar (Yalies are known to flunk bars), but even Republican Senators would not make anything of it. All that said, I favor her for President.
Flag this comment
Oliver
May 23, 2008 7:55 AM CST
She certainly has the legal ability. But, her confirmation hearing would be brutal and would reopen the White Water episode, including billing discrepancies and whether she testified falsely before a Federal grand jury (an issue that tends to run in the Clinton family)..
Flag this comment
Robert
May 23, 2008 7:58 AM CST
Actually, I think it was the NY Bar she couldn’t pass, even though she was working in NY. So, Davis, you would like to see a lawyer who could only pass the Arkansas Bar and a bisbarred attorney both on the SCOTUS?
Flag this comment
MereMortal
May 23, 2008 8:22 AM CST
Since this is an ABA website, I think we ought to stick with the facts. So claiming she flunked the NY bar, when in fact she flunked the D.C. bar, won’t cut it. So let’s not do it. By the way, the former dean of Stanford flunked the Calif. bar. Odd, meaningless whiffs by top tier folks in some bar don’t mean anything.
Flag this comment
JWS
May 23, 2008 8:44 AM CST
While I would not favor a Clinton nomination to the Supreme Court, the idea is not a new one. In 1952, the leading candidate for his Party’s Presidential nomination offered a Supreme Court seat for his strongest rival to drop out . . . . While President Eisenhower later referred to it as one of his “greatest mistakes,” I think most of us would agree that getting Earl Warren on the Court turned out to be a good thing.
Flag this comment
TDR
May 23, 2008 9:01 AM CST
Oh that’s great! Didn’t Gaius Marius try to do the same thing to a young Julius Caesar by appointing him to the Pontifex Maximus position. A life-time, religious appointment that would prevent JC from holding office!
Admittedly, one isn’t forced to remain a supreme court justice for life, but who’s going to give that up for politics?
Flag this comment
Jennifer L. Johnson
May 23, 2008 9:05 AM CST
Our country would benefit from Hilary’s gumption on a supreme court that seems to be sitting on its haunches and cowering to republican ideals. Justices have always been at least somewhat if not entirely (Brennan) partisan in the past. Her voice would be an incredible ally to women, to education and to the needy of our country. She would be an excellent candidate for the S. Ct.
Flag this comment
Jeremy D Sussman
May 23, 2008 9:20 AM CST
Let’s see. Roberts was a judge for a year and a half before being nominated for CJ. Alito goes along with any position taken by an institution of authority. Thomas had no qualifications whatsoever. Scalia thinks that he can go back to 1789 and divine the intent of the Founders. Is she any worse than they are?
Flag this comment
EE
May 23, 2008 9:25 AM CST
She probably can’t make enough cash as a sitting jsutice.
Flag this comment
Scott L. Nelson
May 23, 2008 9:49 AM CST
Let’s leave aside the Hillary-bashing for a moment. The reason Obama can’t make a public “promise” to appoint her, or anyone else, to the Supreme Court is that it is a federal offense for a candidate to promise to appoint someone to office. You can look it up. 18 USC 599: “Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the
appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
Flag this comment
Andy the Lawyer
May 23, 2008 9:52 AM CST
She’d probably prefer the vice-presidency—better pay, less work,potentially more power (if Obama allows her a role more like Cheney’s and less like Dan Quayle’s) no Senate confirmation needed and no ethical restrictions on sounding off to the press on any subject for any reason or no reason.
Flag this comment
KP
May 23, 2008 10:01 AM CST
Robert, have you taken the Arkansas bar? JPB, th University of Arkansas is located in Fayetteville, AR and is a highly regarded law school in the south. I usually enjoy reading the comments and debates here, but I had no idea that the mind behind the comments belonged to such elitest snobs.
Flag this comment
Bird Smack
May 23, 2008 10:05 AM CST
Oliver - I’d like to know what makes Hillary Clinton qualified for a seat on our highest court. She has a law degree. She practiced law for a while (though not without some retrospective inquiries into the manner in wihch she did it) and even, apparently, taught law. Beyond that, she’s been a public figure outside the legal profession. So what, exactly, makes her qualified?
And whoever suggested that Bill Clinton could sit on the Court - I wonder about that. I would assume (but don’t have to time to look it up) that one has to be licensed to practice law to sit on the Court, and Bill Clinton has been disbarred.
Hillary Clinton has engendered a lot of scorn over the last few decades. Can you imagine the confirmation process were she to be nominated to a seat on the bench? Bork, Thomas and Roberts never had it so good.
Flag this comment
PS
May 23, 2008 10:16 AM CST
Mr. Sussman is right on point. Thomas is well qualified? Alito is well qualified? And did you see Jon Stewart’s take on Scalia? Very funny.
And I was not impressed with the 60 Minutes Interview - a very narcissistic man. Hillary could do no worse.
Flag this comment
JPB
May 23, 2008 10:43 AM CST
Thomas may be questionable, but at least he had experience on the bench at the U.S. Court of Appeals (though admittedly not for very long) and served as a deputy attorney general in Missouri, but Alito is more than qualified. He’s been assistant to the solicitor general, assistant to the attorney general, served as a U.S. attorney, taught law at Seton Hall, and spent 16 years on the 3rd Circuit. Any assertion that Alito is unqualified is completely without merit given his vast experience.
Flag this comment
EW
May 23, 2008 10:44 AM CST
In response to ABC’s comments, it’s so pathetic that a person with supposed intellect (a lawyer in 2008) still manages to stoop to the bottom by highlighting Obama’s middle name, Hussein. It’s an obvious ploy to try linking him with Islamic extremists.
Also, the ABC contributor assumes that the majority of the American people are as ignorent as him by stating that the American voters will never elect Obama. The obvious implication is that because Obama is a person of color voters will see to it that he never makes it into the White House.
If ABC is a member of any bar, I pray that he/she never represents the interests of any person of color or person(s) with different cultural backgrounds. ABC, does your state have an ethics requirement? If so, you obviously haven’t adhered to it.
Flag this comment
Bird Sm
May 23, 2008 10:49 AM CST
ABC, your First Amendment rights are hereby revoked!
Flag this comment
John
May 23, 2008 10:58 AM CST
PS, according to the offical biography, Alito “served as a law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals forthe Third Circuit from 1976–1977. He was Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977–1981, Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981–1985, DeputyAssistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985–1987, and U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1987–1990. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990. President George W. Bush nominated him as an AssociateJustice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat on January 31, 2006.” Certainly suggests some qualification to me, but perhaps I am not a sufficient Supreme Court snob to know better.
Also, if a Yale law degree and some practice qualifies Senator Clinton, then his Yale law degree and his longer years in practice, public and private, make Justice Thomas slightly better qualified than Senator Clinton.
Flag this comment
Stevie B
May 23, 2008 11:41 AM CST
Both Hillary and Zipper-Clinton are technically eligible to the court. The constitution requires not even a bachelor’s degree, not to mention a law degree, and does not specify age, experience, or birth for these jobs. the founding partners thought the President and Senate would appoint qualified jurists, but did not require that.
Political qualification, and gaining support by president and in the Senate, is another matter.
Flag this comment
Peter Gill
May 23, 2008 12:02 PM CST
Sounds like the epitome of politics on the bench to me!
Flag this comment
R
May 23, 2008 12:10 PM CST
In today’s hyper-politcal environment, the only way a Hillary Clinton nomination would be approved is if the Democrats have at least 60 Senate seats next year. Otherwise, the nomination would be filibustered to death.
Of course, if you’re a conservative radio talk show host, Hillary Clinton on the S.Ct. almost guarntees you a lifetime job.
Flag this comment
R
May 23, 2008 12:12 PM CST
Re comment #3: You’re so right, ABC: “The American people will never - repeat never - elect Barak Hussein Obama president…”
On the other hand, I am an optimist who firmly believes that Barack Obama - with a “c,” you moron - will be elected and will end up being one of our greatest presidents.
Flag this comment
Umm Hussein
May 23, 2008 12:14 PM CST
The Washington Post writer and ABC both have underestimated Mr. Obama’s ability and intellectual skill. To suggest that he promise Ms. Clinton anything is as offensive as ABC’s played-out innuendo, which has already failed to influence intelligent voters.
Flag this comment
danaesq
May 23, 2008 12:24 PM CST
A woman who is a liar, a cheat and who is never afraid to break a law for her own benefit is not someone that I would want sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States, not to mention that she really is not otherwise qualified for the job in the first place. Besides, Mr. Obama likely is more than smart enough to figure out that nominating Hiliary Clinton for anything will ignite a firestorm of opposition. It just would not be worth the hassle to him.
Flag this comment
Andy the Lawyer
May 23, 2008 2:15 PM CST
Since the thread has devolved into dissing presidential candidates’ middle names, let me proclaim that I would vote for a Hussein before a Sidney. Hussein was a gallant warrior whose death is still passionately mourned every year by devout co-religionists. Sidney is the kid you beat up in middle school for his lunch money.
Flag this comment
ASAC
May 23, 2008 2:42 PM CST
One would hope that the most important quality required for a position on the Supreme Court is honesty. Hasn’t Senator Clinton demonstrated time and time again that she is lacking in that quality? And whoever said they would like to see Bill Clinton on the Court has forgotten that he was disbarred because of his perjury in the Monica Lewinski scandle.
Flag this comment
Art
May 23, 2008 3:22 PM CST
What a great idea. Put her someplace where she can really harm the country!!!
Flag this comment
Paul
May 23, 2008 10:39 PM CST
This sort of journalistic activism is ridiculous, and I scoff at Ms. Neil’s attempts to kindle a Clinton fire. There is so little chance of Mrs. Clinton’s confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice that it is a topic unworthy of a news post, or further discussion. This article could never be more than exactly what it has become: a chance for partisan rivalry to play itself out in a “discussion” thread.
Also, in response to post 30: “the ABC contributor assumes that the majority of the American people are as ignorent as HE.”
Flag this comment
Paul
May 23, 2008 10:40 PM CST
And you misspelled “ignorant.”
Flag this comment
Eric
May 25, 2008 6:20 PM CST
Does the Supreme Court allow the disbarred spouses of justices visit them at work?
Flag this comment
Anonymous Lawyer
May 25, 2008 8:27 PM CST
Bill Clinton’s SUSPENSION ended in 2006. Though I don’t believe he ever sought reinstatement, he has been eligible for bar membership since that time.
Flag this comment
michaelclayton
May 27, 2008 8:11 AM CST
I completely agree with L.F. Giordano. No matter one’s politics, a seat on SCOTUS is too important to be handed out like political candy. Personally, I am very conservative, but I can honestly say that, from my perspective, even the liberal members of the Court are serious justices who pursue their roles in as non-political a manner as possible. When you find that Ginsburg & Scalia are best friends, then you begin to understand that the Supremes are a cut above, not only in their intellect but also in their approach to jurisprudence.
Flag this comment
George Sly
May 27, 2008 8:05 PM CST
Senator Clinton would not be my first choice but as has been noted by JWS and Davis, many of our best justices were not judges before they sat on the court. Chief Justice Marshall was secretary of state, Chief Justice Warren was governor of California, Justice Black, was a senator, Justice Frankfurter was a law professor, and Justice Douglas had served as a lawyer in various executive departments. Putting aside the partisan vitriol, I know of no reason Senator Clinton could not serve. That you do not like her politics is not a reason to impugn her integrity.
Flag this comment
Kurt J. Wolff
May 28, 2008 10:24 AM CST
No one needs to impugn Senator Clinton’s integrity. She and her husband have proven that they lack integrity time and time again. I do agree that prior judicial experience is not essential and depending on the make-up of the Court at any given time, may even be desirable. The notion that a seat on the Supreme Court is a “political payoff” demeans everyone involved. This is certainly not an idea whose time has come.
Flag this comment
Nicole
May 28, 2008 3:54 PM CST
She’d never be confirmed. The Republicans would filibuster until the the administration pulled her name from nomination. Anyone who suggests that such a nomination would get through fails to realize the visceral hatred the two words “Hilary Clinton” invoke in even moderate Republicans like myself. Should such an abominably unthinkable act as her nomination to SCOTUS come to pass, I would be writing letters to every senator and senatorial aide on the Hill and I might even donate a big bushel of money to the “Damned If We Put Her On The Court” PAC.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.