Would Hillary Clinton want to be Supreme Court Justice ?

this has been mentioned thoughout the years but not much since she decided to run for President. but now that Obama is most likely going to win the nomination i wonder if she may not prefer Supreme Court Justice to some other things. even over VP. she has more of a chance at leaving a legacy that stands out on the Court.

one reason she may not want it is if it limits the things she can do within the party and outside of it. would she not be able to attend political party events ?

But I'm batting about 1% for my political predictions this time around.

would have a job forever. She just wouldn't make history and I think she wants that more than anything. It is all or nothing...or VP, but I do have problems with that one still.

I hope not.

she is intelligent even if she failed it. the problem with that was more that she felt ashamed of it to hide it all these years.

The notion of politicians vs. Circuit Court judges as nominees for the Supreme Court comes up every time there's an opening. Politicians fight for causes, not the Constitution. It's really that simple. Hillary might draft an opinion declaring that health care was a right bestowed by the founders of our country when that's just not true. How would she reconcile voting for or against her causes in the cases? With the Supreme Court, the end is never justified by the means. That is why people are worried about Roe v. Wade and not Brown v. Board of Education. Even pro-choice experts will admit that the logic in the Roe v. Wade decision was flawed, so now we are living in perpetual fear that if the power of balance is shifted in the Supreme Court, they might take up that case again. People always complain about judges legislating from the bench. Hillary would take it to a whole new level. :rofl:

It showed that Congressional approval still worked. Remember how he tried to get Harriet Myers on the Supreme Court? He would have done it had it not been for the obvious outrage from Congress. Like them or not, but Alito and Roberts were judicially qualified to be nominated. Most disagreements aren't with their overreaching of power, but their judicial decisions instead, not the same thing.

nt

I think she will stay in the Senate. She could be pretty effective there.

1. She's never been a judge, not even presiding over traffic cases or as a magistrate deciding whether to issue a warrant.

2. She has not held a position as an academic in a law school or a university. She has not published any academic papers about "the law" in any respect.

3. Just because HRC is more likely than not to come up with "the right decision" in constitutional law controversies, especially with the Bill of Rights, doesn't make her a preferred justice. She will be leaning hard on her clerks to do the research and the writing for her decisions whether they are majority, concurrences, or dissents.

4. A slot on the Supreme Court should NEVER be handed out in the tradition of "to the victor goes the spoils." It is something your expertise and experience allows you to be a candidate and perhaps vetted and approved.

Hell no.

she could make it.

The idea of her doing anything other than serving out her term as a Senator bothers me. :scared:

Nothing would make the GOP happier than to have her on the Supreme Court. They would have a perpetual boogey man for thier fundraisers for the next 20-30 years.

With a democratic-controlled Senate in which she's well-liked? I doubt that would be the problem.

The bigger problem would be a political one - for the President who appointed her. It would be seen as a highly partisan use of a judicial nomination.

They're going to lose 5-8 seats in November - I doubt they'd all stick together to filibuster.

But, it won't matter. Obama won't take the political risk of nominating Clinton.

Promise Clinton the Supreme Court -- give Obama the VP -- and then get Gore or Edwards to lead out ticket to victory in November.

After all -- it's the Party that's important. Not the tiny egos of POTUS wannabees.

Do I have to remind you that taking the nomination away from a woman and an African American and giving it to a white southern male would look very very bad.

have spent five months proving that neither can win ?

And if they can't win a nomination among people who love them -- what are the hopes for them in November when they are going against enemies ?

We do this and we piss off the two biggest parts of our base. We have to go to the party with the people who fought for this nomination the past 6 months.

there's no reason to bring in a third one.

She has never been a judge.

She has horrible judgment and doesn't even read documentation provided to make her decisions.

She appears to have some issues with perception of reality.

NO SALE.

you don't even have to be a lawyer to be on the court. But she IS a lawyer - a very accomplished one.

As I said above, though, the bigger problem would be the political problem of using a judicial nomination in such a partisan way. She's just not viewed as very neutral by anybody.

This issue is discussed every time there's a Supreme Court opening. Also, it's not the most effective way to fight for whatever causes one wants to fight for. You'll have to give up fighting for the people if you want to become a Supreme Court Justice. Hillary loves her supporters and her causes too much to sacrifice this.

Earl Warren comes to mind. President Taft had a notable "second career" as Chief Justice.

But I don't think she'll be nominated, so it won't matter.

It seems like the legislative branch of government has started to hate the judicial branch. Congress in particular seems to keep lobbing accusations of 'legislating from the bench' at judges. If Congress could easily repeal the lifetime sentence of some judicial nominees, some of them would in a heartbeat. Supreme Court hearings have now become games of multiple litmus tests instead of questions about qualifications. Just listen to presidential candidates nowadays talk about their Supreme Court nominees. Each side all but says that they will have a litmus test on Roe v. Wade. They say it in codespeak of course, but it's easy to interpret what they're saying nonetheless.

and I don't think it's a particularly new phenomenon. Politicians and judges have battled each other since the very beginning of the Republic. Some are more vocal and vehement about it now, but I don't see any real great underlying change.

mainly because politicians these days wouldn't pass the litmus tests during the Senate confirmation hearings. They have years of their voting record on display, so there's no need to even figure out how they would rule on some cases. Now the Senate tries to get clever by asking things like, "Is Roe v. Wade settled law?" The nominees realize this and come up with clever answers, even if they are absurd. I think Clarence Thomas' response was that he hadn't ever reviewed the case close enough to decide, and it was actually a pretty effective answer to those wanting to support him. If Hillary tries to give that kind of answer, people would laugh her out of the room, because she's obviously pro-choice. So her long legislative record would then be combed through with a million interns for a million litmus tests.

John Roberts was able to claim that Roe v. Wade was 'more than settled as precedent'. Statements like that are required to get you through the Senate confirmation. A conservative judge implying that he will uphold Roe v. Wade without being legally bound to do so. Answers like these get you votes from both Republicans and Democrats. Alito was almost done in because he wrote a paper back in the mid 80s saying that the Constitution didn't provide a right to abortion. No digging necessary for a politician, because their votes are out front and center for all to see.

who not only fights for womens rights but for all people.

which is why politicians will have a hard time being approved by the Senate.

Or why ask, just spread a false rumor (lie).