Hillary Clinton for Supreme Court Justice

This is a ludicrous assertion. I am awestruck. What in the world would make anyone think that Hillary Clinton is even remotely qualified to sit on the Supreme Court!!!!!!?? I can't believe it.

WASHINGTON POST - Next Stop, Supreme Court? By James Andrew Miller Wednesday, May 21, 2008.....As I was reading an Op Ed piece in the Wash. Post earlier this week, I could have sworn I read the idea somewhere else. Kudos to you. You had the thought many months before Mr. Miller.

Clinton's plan for winning the nomination, perhaps? She gets Obama to violate the law in offering her an appointment in exchange for her going away (and supporting him), and then she sticks it to him. Very sneaky. See Statute 18 USC Sec. 599 (Promise of appointment by candidate): 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.

The Supreme Court should not be a political ball to toss over to friends as consolation prizes. The forum of last resort in our democracy should be objective, independent and most of all--experienced. Working in a Little Rock law firm with no experience on any legal bench is Harriet Miers all over again. Change means we're better than that. The Clintons have had their day. Time to move on. "the fierce urgency of today"

I am a disappointed Clinton supporter. I don't want to argue the past- just to point out that her record has been identical to Barak's since he is in the Senate- with I believe, 6 votes of any consequential difference, of which she voted more progressively in several of them. However, I do think that this supreme court justice HRC is now the best solution. She will make a phenomenal supreme court justice. Leon

Maybe, like Huckabee, she's hanging on in this race just waiting for her desired exit strategy.

After Obama wins more delegates from TX (my state) than she does (chicano districts are 'under'-delegated since small votes in 2000 & 2004) despite her squeaking out popular vote, he should offer her the S.C. seat immediately and quietly.

BUT, she should actually stay in the race, again like Huckabee, until the end so that Obama can campaign hard in all remaining states, get folks involved and signed up.

Strategically, Obama benefits from HC being 'in it' until the end, to build his network of motivated volunteers for the general election to (a) wallup McCain in general and get a 65-35 mandate and (b) use the nationwide Obama network to influence/pressure legislators during his term on his agenda.

Without HC as adversary, fewer will jump in and signup and the general will be closer and term motivation will be reduced.

oh4real

She can sit as a Court Justice, out of the limelight, yet extremely influential, for the rest of her days - and Bill can focus on his outstanding foundation. And, what'smore, they can officially, finally get divorced after she is sworn in, which may well happen when she loses nomination bid and no longer needs him 'to win the White House'.

Do NOT make her Chief Justice, not that that would be available in 8 years of Obama Administration, but placing her on Supreme Court as regular justice puts her where she thrives:

exerting "behind the scenes" great influence.

oh4real

Based on the majority of the 'she's disqualified because of' this vote or that vote crowd, I think people commenting didn't read the critical aspect that being on the Supreme Court would 'free' up of HC from political considerationsm, free her up from calculating which sub-group could she afford to offend in exchange for gaining support of another.

They blast her for a variety of positions that, given freedom to opine from her policy-wonkish, liberal-progressive heart, would go very differently.

Think about it people, the biggest complaint against HC is that she is 'inhuman' derived from being overly 'calculating' because she (and Bill) is. Not to mention a woman playing in a man's world, where her concept of male and female roles/attitudes was forged in the 50s and 60s.

Freed of the constraints of appeasing and appealing demographic sub-groups, the Real HC will stand up.

oh4real

Was hanging with other volunteers Thursday AM and one offered this suggestion up and it struck me as brilliant for the handful of reasons mentioned, plus one more.

Freed of catering to lobbyists and calculating to voters, her progressive ideals would be unleashed on the court.

Obama should offer her the first Supreme Court slot (never Chief!!!) to suspend and endorse, privately, of course. Maybe that's why she's still running?? Like Huckabee, she's waiting to be offered the exit strategy of her choice.

oh4real

We reached the same conclusion. 'The Audacity of Hope" Feb 16, 2008
http://adgitadiaries.blog-city.com

Hillary Clinton in any position of power is a horrible idea. If you are a male that has gone through a divorce then you have probably endured Hillary's legacy. The Family Court Judge has probably treated you in the same way that Alec Baldwin and Charlie Sheen have been treated. They've fabricated a doctrine called the "best interest of the child". Guess what? The "best interest of the child" usually coincides with the wishes of the mother. This doctrine usually serves to minimize the parental control of the father and maximize the parental control of the mother. Ask Hillary what she thinks about Affirmative Action for fathers in Family Court in order to bring fathers into a statistical balance. And, don't be tricked into believing the statistic that most divorces grant joint custody. This refers to "Legal" custody! "Physical" custody is usually granted to the mother. I don't think that Hillary can deny that this is her legacy!

How has, what I once considered the best progressive/liberal blog on the net, come to this place. Everyday it seems you become more of a front for the Obama campaign.

As you know I didn't begin this process by supporting Hillary, she wasn't nearly liberal enough for me, but I came to support her when I began to compare and contrast the public lives of Hillary, Obama and Edwards. It was there that I found Hillary to be the most prepared of the 3.

When Edwards dropped out prior to the TN primary I had already decided to cast my vote for Hillary and no matter the final result I'll always be satisfied with my first and probably my only vote for a woman for the office of the president.

I try to watch Obama on the stump as much as possible and when I do I am uneasy with his style because it reminds me more of a preacher than a man seeking office.

It would be nice to think that there is a man or woman running for office whose high minded platitudes matched the quality of their life, but I've been here for over 6 decades and I've never seen it yet. Not in Obama, not in Hillary, not in anyone.

But there is a difference between Hillary and Barack, with Hillary what you see is what you get, with Barack what you see is what you HOPE to get.

I am to old for the empty promise of hope being dished out by Barack Obama because I can't see that his life is an extension of his campaign. There is no hope except for that which is manufactured for public events and the truth that there is no there, there, has saddened me greatly, particularly for all of the new young voters who believe they've found something special. Despite the soaring rhetorical flourishes words can't make it so.

If Barack wins the nomination he will be as vulnerable as a kitten in a lions cage. If he loses he will go back to doing and being what he was before, nothing special.

No, put me down for another vote on the side of hiring someone with a moral compass for the job, not another politician.

Why?

I feel she is not morally qualified for the presidency. From the vote for the War on Iraq (and the arrogance of no apology), to the beginnings of the votes for a War on Iran, and applauding and exhorting the Israelis to bomb Beirut and more cluster bombs for Lebanese children, not present for the vote against Telecom immunity, no, we need someone far better than Hillary. And as far as "working" with the Rethugs, that is a liability. I've demanded that my Dem Rep "reach across the aisle" only to snap the handcuffs on.

I want someone who will destroy the Rethugs and send them into exile for 1000 years. They are fascist criminals, plunderers and anti-democratic, with no understanding of, or regard for our Constitution, Bill of Rights or the principles this country was founded on. Every headline we see daily on Buzzflash reflects what these criminals are doing, and Hillary Clinton would be working with them to undermine the country more.

And I have my doubts about Obama too. No Barack, the health insurance companies DO NOT deserve a place at the table. They should be driven entirely out of business. Only one candidate stood up to the bastards and their Dem enablers who are running the circus, and that was Dennis Kucinich. And he will be getting a donation or two for his re-election long before Obama will. It's an outrage that the best candidates were driven out of the race (on both sides apparently), and I will not reward the machine candidates with my vote.

I'm a very Progressive Independent--Capitalist, disgusted with the choices the elite and MSM have made for us, and I will only vote for for the Dem if it is close. My nose is collapsing from having to hold it so many years as I vote.

It would be great to have another woman justice, especially a Progessive one. Hillary is not that. If the Senate is not big enough for her ambitions, she can move back to Arkansas, or to China, and run Wal-Mart.

I give money to many left leaning causes. In fact, many times I was on the verge of sending buzzflash a check for $50. However, your cult-like obsession with Obama and your complete disrepect for the Clintons has made that impossible now. I will never vote for a republican, but I also can't support any candidate or site who attacks the Clintons like the Republicans did in the 90's. You lost my support, buzzflash.

Fleurette Dube Trying to suck up to Hillary supporters for $$$$$$$$$$? Hillary Clinton would be good at ANYTHING, but for you to suggest this, means that you are implying that your guy has already won the nomination. Just go on supporting the one with the inflated ego and no substance. This ain't over till it's over! I will never forgive you for being so evil to the Clintons! If you had stayed neutral, it would have been much better for you. For Obama to say that if she wins, his voters would not vote for her is so arrogant that probably a lot of Hillary supporters will not be able to vote for him. If he becomes the nominee, he will lose against McCain,for lack of experience and substance. NO DOUBT!

An interesting insight from the reader who would nominate Hillary for the Supreme Court. Just last night, I was strongly thinking about her as the future Secretary of State.

Sick!

An outright, unrepentant supporter of attempts to subvert the Constitution...on the Court?

A supporter of actions in violation of Art I Sec 8, Art I Sec 9, Art I Sec 4, Art VI and of Amendments IV, V, VI and VIII et al...on the Court?

Though I am a long-time reader and supporter of Buzzflash you have lost me.

How utterly gracious of you to so condescendingly approve of Hillary as a Supreme Court Justice, because you deemed it. Wow, talk about left-wing arrogance, you buzzflashers have that down.

And when she makes a decision that you disapprove of, I'm sure you will let all of us know.

"So let's unite the Democratic Party, win the White House, and put Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court."

If and when Obama becomes the nominee, you can bet your little arrogant rear ends that I will be voting Democratic in November. Only, it won't be for Obama. So sue me. I'll be writing in a different name on the ballot. You Obama "wavers", I'm sure will carry the day and carry the vote in November. Have fun. Wink.

The fat lady just sat down to rest for the next two weeks...it's not over
until its over and the next two states are delegate rich.

Wouldn't that be the ultimate revenge on the Republicans for all their lawbreaking and corruption? Also, she would have the ultimate power of law enforcement behind her and wouldn't need to cut deals and compromise priciples to keep that power.

you seem to think if you act a LITTLE nice for Hillary that we will forget you have chosen to take sides in this democratic race....and now you must pay the piper....or uh, NOT get paid, is what i meant to say.....CAUSE YOU WON'T GET ANY MORE OF MY MONEY....maybe you should have thought of the consequences for your actions before you did them and then IMMEDIATELY started whining about the results

If anything, Hillary should be the Veep nominee. She would be Obama's insurance against impeachment and or assasination. She would add gravitas to Obama's lack of credentials. She could be the hatchet person that a Pres needs. But I do wonder how BuzzFlash can think she is qualified for anything after their intensive campaign to destroy her and Bill. I'll never get over how you went over the edge about the contest between Barrack and Hillary. Well, I hope you are happy and it doesn't turn out like Patrick Deval's reign in Massachusettes. Yea, I really believe P. Deval told him to go ahead and use his (Axelrod's) words! No wonder the People of Mass voted overwhelmingly for Hillary despite the MSM's slobbering over Obama. Guess they have seen the promised land in Mass and it wasn't as pretty as promised by Deval.

i agree with chad -- bill for ussc, hillary for senate majority leader since it now looks like obama is going to be the nominee. hope to god he wins the election, doesn't drag us off to he right, surrounds himself with very knowledgable and competent advisors, and deals w/his advisors like bill did rather than like bush has. we have to win this election. 4-8 more years of the same old bush/gop/far-right nonsense and we are in some serious trouble as a nation and as a planet. the laundry list of problems to be dealt with that is the gop legacy is going to be very... well words fail me in trying to describe what that is going to be like. we just can't have more of the same old head in the sand, don't worry about it, everything is fine nonsense that we have been hearing from the gop/corporate/elite leadership for the last few years.

also i have to agree sadly with the charges of hypocrisy and/or bad faith being levelled at buzzflash by some. like it or not, your level of partisanship within the democratic party ranks has risen sharply with your hillary bashing in the last few days or weeks. now that is okay in one sense and you have that right BUT you can't have it both ways. acknowledge your partisanship or stop your pretense of not being partisan. you can't be both.

Sir your so two faced is this so you can get your Donations up. You need to read what your Obama supporters are responding to your suggestion you tear her Down and expect those that read you to be all cool with your suggestion you helped Destroy her so live with it even if you can't pay your bills talk about a phony. she would be a good Supreme court Justice but that will never be allowed to happen her and Bill have been so shit on by Democrats I would'nt blame her and him if they told this party and Obama to stick where the sun dosen't shine but they would'nt do that there loyal to this party and have no reason to be lets remember the pottery barn rule you break it you own it and progressive have broken this party and there real proud of it! So live with It we have to.

Mark, while I would have thought this a marvelously good idea a month ago, Sen. Clinton's recent conduct shows she not only lacks the moral compass all Supreme Court Justices should have, she showed her willingness to smash her compass to pieces in front of the world to satisfy what can only be called a Macbethian ambition.

Is this judgment too harsh? Consider just these two points:

-- Sen. Clinton voted along with the war mongers to allow the Pentagon to keep dropping cluster bombs in civilian areas, despite strong opposition from human rights groups throughout the world. Those groups report that about 40 percent of people killed and maimed by these terror weapons are children. Young children are attracted to the unexploded toy-like bomblets that each cluster bomb spreads across a large area. Sen. Clinton is aware of this terrible toll on children, yet she sided with the Republican war criminals so that she would look equally militant and tough-hearted to compete with them for pro-war votes.

Faced with the choice of future votes or the lives of countless children, she picked votes.

-- Last month, Sen. Clinton said with apparent sincerity, that she would not join Sen. Obama in removing her name from the Michigan ballot, and explained why joining him would be unnecessary. Because the Michigan Democratic Party refused to follow DNC's rules, its vote would not be counted, therefore no action was necessary. But now, she is claiming she beat Obama in Michigan fairly and squarely and Michigan's delegates must be included. Unlike Clinton, Sen. Obama respected the Democratic rules and took his name off the ballot. Therefore, the only people who voted in the Michigan primary were those who wanted to support Clinton. Obama supporters stayed home because he wasn't on the ballot. Clinton is now loudly pounding the party's table insisting that those votes be counted. Sen. Clinton does not believe in rules unless they can be used to her Macbethian advantage.

Is this the kind of Justice we want on the U.S. Supreme Court? Don't we have enough Scalias and Thomases already on the bench working to turn this country into war-mongering fascist state?

We need women and men of conscience on the bench, not more mendacious, heartless opportunists.

So consider this a no vote.

Hillary thrives on the political process, which is why the people of New York like what she has done. She would make a good Supreme Court justice, but she would be bored. Better to have a job such as Senate Majority Leader that she is well suited. And give Bill Clinton the Supreme Court nod. William Howard Taft did it quite well. Bill Clinton has the Constitutional smarts to do a great job.

This would be very, very good for the United States of America. I could be proud of my country again with Obama as President, the Dems in control of Congress, and Hillary on the Court. That and Bush and Cheney in prison awaiting execution for war crimes, treason, murder, torture, violations of the U. S. Constitution and violations on International Law.

I cannot believe that after all the things this site has said about Hillary they would let someone suggest putting this White Female Pimp who is married to Bill the "red dress" on our Supreme Court. From what I have read on this site she should be burned at the stake for witchcraft.To have such a nut cracker, as the adds say she is, on our Supreme Court would be despicable,such a calculating and conniving, self seeking bitch as Obama's supporters say she is on our Supreme Court defies belief.Surely this site has some self respect.

Stop it.

The same traits that make Hillary unattractive as a candidate for president disqualify her for any position of authority. That is especially true for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. I for one would like to have justices who put principle before self promotion, who are truthful even when it is inconvenient and who do not weigh every act on the scale of what is best for themselves.

If Duhbya nominated a justice who had:

(1) Co-sponsored legislation making flag burning a crime

(2) Cast votes without becoming informed as Hillary claims she did on the vote to authorize the Iraq war

(3) Refused to admit error

(4) Subsequently voted for Kyl-Leiberman to authorize further attacks and against limits on cluster bombing civilians

(5) Conducted a racist campaign when the going got tough

(6) Advocated garnishing wages for health insurance premiums

(7) Etc, etc, etc (Yul Brynner '56 - the King & I)

You would be screaming from the rooftops. You would be right. Hillary has valued toe sucking, "Triangulating", self-dealing over principle at every opportunity.

Character is the issue for all positions. Character is demonstrated by behavior. Behaviorists have long known that it is relatively easy to describe actions but often devilishly hard to correctly ascribe causation.

You have seen Hillary's clearly disqualifying behavior. What makes you so sure you know the "real" Hillary that you would advocate putting that known behavior in a lifetime position where she is able to trade away our rights for perceived transient tactical advantage or self benefit?

We need people of principle as justices on the court. We need justices who are willing to stand up to Scalia and the hard core Federalist Society ideologues now on the court. We need justices who are ready to protect and defend our Constitution, not "Triangulate", equivocate and calculate. Paul Krugman commented several years ago "Compromise with evil yields only the illusion of progress. Evil takes what you give it then comes back for more".

The Clintons have had their time on the national stage. We have had enough. It is time for them to go (Gore '92).