On the Hillary for Supreme Court Idea

[Puppycow]

An Op-Ed in the Washington Post by James Andrew Miller says that Barack Obama should offer Hillary a nomination to the Supreme Court as a consolation prize. Is this a good idea? Is she qualified? She does have a law degree and was a practicing attorney, although she hasn't been a judge (IIRC, neither had Harriet Meirs when Bush nominated her). Miller dismisses this fact as "inconsequential," considering her experience in law and government.

Is this the best way to achieve party unity? Would this convince Hillary voters who wouldn't support Obama otherwise to vote for him? How would this work exactly? I suppose he would publically state that if a vacancy on the Supreme Court should come up, that Hillary would be the first person he would nominate to fill the vacancy. Is there any precedent for this sort of thing?

 

[chipmunk stew]

It's a terrible idea. Social conservatives would come out in droves for McCain.

 

[kallsop]

I guess Hillary would jump at the chance. She'd have a lifetime opportunity to "fix" the Constitution and wouldn't need to lower herself to associating with ordinary folk.

Does it help Obama in November? It helps with getting Hillary supporters on his side, but given the huge negatives that Hillary has among the entire electorate, it's overall a net loss for Obama.

Besides, Obama needs to buy votes from bitter white gun totin' religious kooks, the dixiecrats, and I don't think Hillary does that for him.

 

[WildCat]

This would be the worst nomination since Harriet Meier.

 

[fishbob]

Curse you, James Andrew Miller, for making me agree with Wildcat.

 

[Pookster]

It's a terrible idea. Social conservatives would come out in droves for McCain.

Agreed. The less Obama talks about potential nominees to anything right now, the better. His first and only focus should be his running mate.

 

[dudalb]

Horrid idea. Hilary was apparently a Damn good lawyer, but she has NO experience on the bench, and ,call me old fashioned, I think someone should have at least some experience as a judge before sitting on the highest court on the land, one whose decison is The Final Word in the judicial system.
A positiion as important as a seat on the Supreme Court should not be a "consolation prize".
And James Andrew Miller has just gotten a place on my "Idiot whose opinions should not be taken seriously" for the suggestion.

 

[Brainster]

If he made such an offer, I'm sure he would do it in private. But from Hillary's standpoint, that makes it unenforceable (indeed, even a public offer would be unenforceable).

If Obama is elected, and if he nominates Hillary, I would expect her to sail through confirmation hearings and get about 85 votes in the Senate for confirmation.

 

[dudalb]

The more I think about it, the more I think that this would be incredibly stupid move for Obama to make.
If word leaked out before the election...and I think it would... the idea of appointing somebody to the Surpeme court who has no experience as a judge as part of a political payoff would cost Obama the election.

 

[corplinx]

The good news is, the supreme court has no billing records that can get lost.

 

[TheJim]

This is beyond a terrible idea. A huge reason I never even thought of supporting Hillary Clinton are issues that deal with the SC. Her views on the first amendment for example make me sick, calling for the flag burning amendment (as a justice she might rule correctly but I don't trust it) and censorship of music, movies and video games. I don't trust her on separations of power based on her role in the Clinton White House along with statements she has made over the last few years. I don't trust her on 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendment issues either as she is a strong drug warrior and will continue moving the court to the pro-prosecution side. I don't trust her on privacy. If she was on the court I could see her being a little to the right of O'Connor on these issues.

I also don't see any reason why Obama to do this either. A deal like this could not be mentioned before the election so it does not help solidify support from her supporters (again i don't buy any of the polls that show anyone but Nixon/Reagan Dems not going for Obama in the fall). If news where to leak out he would be killed in the press for this move and it will turn into a Harriet Meir type story. She is almost opposite in her reasoning than Obama's on constitutional issues. The only reasons for this deal are to insure her full backing in the general but she has to do that anyways if she wants a future in the party or to have his "enemies close" but this too me is a weak argument. If he really feels threatened he could give her a number of cabinet level positions or make some kind of special czar position on women and children's issues for her to head up. I personally believe this campaign has allowed the long list of Clinton enemies in the party to come out of hiding which will lessen her influence in the Congress wither Obama wins or losses. If Obama losses, I don't see her with a strong 2012 argument either. In 2012 there will be at least 2 other female candidates that will have support if they choose to run, the party will be younger while her key support group of over 50 white females will be older and less powerful either as a voting block or in groups with power in the party just to name a couple of the problems.

 

[WildCat]

She's a sitting Senator, why would she need a cabinet position?

Though I wouldn't object to her being named Ambassador to Uzbekistan.

 

[TheJim]

^I am not saying she does, I am just pointing out a more realisitic course of action than the nonsense VP or SC talk.

 

[Brainster]

Many Supreme Court justices have never had any judicial experience before ascending to the high court, including probably the most famous Chief Justice of my lifetime, Earl Warren.

 

[Puppycow]

OK. Thanks. Not a lot of support for the idea here on the JREF forum. I agree that the SC shouldn't be used as a political bargaining chip, and that a quiet, serious judge and expert on the constitution and laws should be nominated rather than a famous politician or personal crony of the president.

 

[Puppycow]

A deal like this could not be mentioned before the election so it does not help solidify support from her supporters (again i don't buy any of the polls that show anyone but Nixon/Reagan Dems not going for Obama in the fall).

The only Miller's OP makes any sense at all is if it is somehow made public explicitly. Although he could say it in a way that leaves some wiggle room. For example, a reporter asks him what he would look for in a supreme court justice, and he answers someone a lot like Hillary Clinton.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yeah, I mean technically there aren't really any qualifications for being a Supreme Court Justice, but I really don't see her making it through the nomination process.

Personally, I would prefer that the next appointee be a complete civil libertarian.