What are your feelings about Hillary Clinton being nominated for any potential SC opening?

[Ikonoklast]

Assuming that Republicans can't stop her from getting appointed (and I would love to hear them scream, wail, gnash their teeth, and bark at the moon over this one), would she be too Centrist, moderate, good on social issues but not far enough on corporate and civil liberties for you?

Where do you think Hillary might fall in that spectrum, and state any reasons both for and against.

I have two things that might give me pause, her age is one of them, I'd want a younger appointee (I know, I know, she can't change that) and the other is I feel she might just trend a little too corporate for my tastes.

What say you?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. The right would revolt

Getting her approved would be difficult to say the least.

[Ikonoklast]

4. For the sake of argument, assume we have the Senate votes to confirm.

Do you think that she would be a good choice?

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. She would be outstanding.

But there is no way the right wing would allow her nomination to go forward. Even if "we" did have the votes in the Senate.

So it's a non-starter, AFAIC.

[Ikonoklast]

31. Theoretical discussion suspending current political reality and assuming ideal conditions

for confirmation.

I think she'd make a decent addition to the court, at least in some areas.

[Marnie]

61. But might the Republicans not spend their ammo on her

so that Obama could then appoint a liberal who is male, liberal, and a sitting federal judge?

RepoNazi could roll out the same arguments, except for the sexism, but they would not have the same sting the second time around.

[madamesilverspurs]

99. The right is already revolting.

As in vomit-inducing.

Jesus Christ could be nominated and the teanderthals would block.

[Zorra]

2. I think she would be a great SCOTUS justice. nt

[Ikonoklast]

5. Elaborate, please. I want to hear your reasons.

[Zorra]

56. Thanks for asking! She is educated, intelligent, capable, and aware.

The knowledge that she gleaned as the partner of a 2 term President, a US Senator, and as Secretary of State, gives her a very informed perspective on the big picture that would be invaluable in making decisions as a Scotus justice.

Her knowledge and disapproval of the RW and their 1% masters, and the fact that she has publicly spoken out about her awareness of the intentions and methods of these individuals and groups that are determined to stifle democracy, indicate that she would interpret the Constitution from the standpoint of the intentions of the creators of the Constitution:

Clinton: Vast right-wing conspiracy is back
Cites anti-voter actions, phone jamming and intimidating phone calls

Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has resurrected her claim of a 'vast, right-wing conspiracy'.
snip--
"So if anybody tells you there is no vast right-wing conspiracy, tell them that New Hampshire has proven it in court," she said.
snip--
Clinton made her charge of conspiracy in response to a question about her proposed bill that would make Election Day a federal holiday, and make it a crime to send misleading or fraudulent information to voters.

She also said the government should do more to end unusually long lines at certain polling places.

"It just so happens that many of those places where people are waiting for hours are places where people of color are voting or young people are voting. That is un-American, and we're going to end it," Clinton said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17593375/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-back/#.TwnRC4H8mSo

She knows what is going on, she acknowledges it publicly, and fully realizes the scope of the RW/1% cabal.

Her insistence on the recognition and enforcement of human rights, and her eloquent public expression of the need to recognize and enforce human rights, indicate a profound understanding of the lack of and need for universal democratic equality, and indicate also a broad, keen awareness of the importance of civil liberties.

The words spoken in the video and transcript below fully illustrate Secretary of State Clinton's profound awareness and understanding of the core concepts of justice, equality, and liberty relating to human existence and dignity, and maintaining a free democracy as envisioned by the collective mind that created the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is the primary essential quality and indication of qualification necessary for any Supreme Court Justice. (We have, at this time, five presiding SCOTUS justices that are very clearly in the employ of the 1%, and who actively and repeatedly legislate from the bench to prevent the aforementioned core concepts in this paragraph from effectively being the law of the land).

"No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity."

The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.
--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Video and full text here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/hillary-clinton-gay-rights-speech-geneva_n_1132392.html?ref=mostpopular

Here is the Youtube video of the speech:

Secretary of State Clinton is a very powerful, aware, and intelligent human being. As an individual serving on the Supreme Court, she would be free to make decisions without having to be concerned with pleasing a largely uninformed electorate in order to get elected. If she is as sincere as I believe her to be, she would be, IMO, one of the most important individuals dedicated to ending corporate personhood and promoting and furthering egalitarian democracy as a permanently evolving phenomenon in, and into, the future.

At this point, plainly speaking, I think SOS Clinton is disgusted by, and contemptuous of, all the malevolent, disingenuous bullshit that she has been exposed to in her capacities of President's partner and SOS, and that she'd kick some serious ass if given free rein to try to eliminate it.

I rest my case.

[Ikonoklast]

66. I also see her as being a strong advocate for individual rights.

Thanks for the answer.

[Raffi Ella]

110. Bravo!

Excellent post, I enjoyed reading it. She is an amazing person.

[obamanut2012]

6. Agree -- she is good on social issues

I;m glad Obama won the Primary, but I liked her as a senator and I like her as SOS. I think she would very liberal on social issue rulings.

[Ikonoklast]

20. One of the reasons I asked this is because SoS is a killing tough job.

I think Hillary might asked to be replaced in Obama's second term, I could be wrong, I think she's done an admirable job as SoS, and would hate to see her go.

[gateley]

107. Didn't she say she was only going to do SOS for one term? I think it was quite a while ago, but

I don't recall the specifics. I can't imagine how stressful that job is, and unlike Condi whom I just viewed as essentially dictation and spouting what Cheney told her to, Hillary is really DOING the j.o.b.

[quinnox]

3. too old unfortunately

[Ikonoklast]

9. That is one reason I have for being against, I'd like potential longevity.

But she is a woman, in good health, twenty years, maybe?

[Marnie]

65. But if she were willing she could draw the Republicans fire

and make it more difficult for the Repbubs to use the same types of PR against the next nominee who could be a male sitting judge, highly qualified etc.

[Ikonoklast]

71. Interesting take.

Use a Hillary nomination as the misdirection, making the other side use up all their ammo, then bring out the person who you really wanted to begin with.

They would be hard pressed to use the same arguments.

Hmmm.

Good political strategy if it could be made to work.

[karynnj]

92. Horrible idea - why would you want Hillary to go through all the attacks, just to

have her name withdrawn.

[TBF]

7. I think she's fine at State or maybe VP -

but I prefer judges or legal scholars for the Court.

[Ikonoklast]

10. I see that as cutting both ways.

Legal scholars can get bogged down on the letter of the law, but forget to consider the spirit side.

Some crummy SC justices were crummy judges, previous to the SC.

[cthulu2016]

8. Too old and too statist/authoritarian

I would be fine with her as president, but not on SCOTUS.

[Ikonoklast]

12. Do you think SC Justice Clinton would vote to overturn the CU ruling?

Just trying to see how far you think Hillary as Statist would be.

[cthulu2016]

14. She would vote to overturn CU

CU is not statist. Quite the opposite.

[Ikonoklast]

24. Hmm. Maybe an 'Absolutist' ruling in support of the 1st Amendment.

I saw CU as confirning the direction we've been heading these last thirty years or so, trying to finally codify corporate personhood.

Revoutionary in that it finally comes right out and states that "Corporation are people, my friend", as Mitt would have it.

[cthulu2016]

27. Corporations have been persons for centuries

Only a person has standing in court. If a corporation were not a person you could not sue a corporation, sign a contaract with a corportaion, a corporation could not collect a debt, etc.

The question is where the limits of corporate personhood lie, but they will always have personhood in a lot of legal contexts.

(Sorry for being a school-marm, but it's always hard to argue anything without the area of controversy being defined.)
Since CU advances what we see (correctly) as a defacto corporatist form of governance it is conglomeratory (if that's a word) but it isn't statist as such.

Saying that the government can tell people or entities what political ads they may or may not run is an asssertion of state power, and one I think Hillary would be on board with.

[Ikonoklast]

42. I understand that corporate personhood is a legal construct not intended to be on par with an

actual human, and that CU has expanded that definition in a rather dramatic fashion.

I actually have no problem with any entity running any kind of ad they want, but I also realize that since Money = Speech, the playing field for Speech has been tilted away from anyone with little or no money, and Speech is now mostly for those that can afford it.

[boston bean]

16. she would probably have to recuse herself.

but I do think she would like to have it overturned.

[Ikonoklast]

50. Good point, but that bar has been lowered considerably.

Clarence THomas can do just about anything he wants and get away with ruling in his own self-interest, it now seems.

[Marnie]

68. Be intersting to know how passionate Robert's is about his place

in legal history.
His protection of Scalia's 2002 anointment of Bush and his protection of Thomas who fails on multiple levels reflects very badly on him as the head of the court, as does the CU decision that acts as much to dehumanize humans as it does to humanize corporations.

[Ikonoklast]

74. Roberts is doing the job he is being told to do.

I don't see him as being anything other than a partisan political hack who just happens to wear a black robe to work.

His Court will be looked at by historians as one of the worst this nation ever had.

I don't think he really cares about leaving any legacy.

[yurbud]

11. on the most important corporate dominance issues, she would be a swing vote at best

she used to sit on the board of Walmart for Christ's sake.

[Ikonoklast]

13. Would you see her as being a little timid on Labor issues, concerning employee rights?

[yurbud]

35. timid would imply she wants to do the right thing but holds back.

I'm not sure about the wants part.

[paulk]

49. be fair

the Walmart she served with was not the Walmart of today. They were the largest employer in AK, the state her husband was governor of and she did do some good things while there - pressing social issues like more women in management and environmental issues. She didn't fight were she couldn't win, like Walmart's anti union position. Not so good there. Still, it's an unfair criticism to make, imo, used out of context concerning corporations.

That said, I wouldn't immediately support her for the SC, there are more liberal choices out there - that is if Obama would nominate a more liberal choice, which is questionable...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?pagewanted=all

[yurbud]

83. Did she make any statement at all about their labor practices while on the board?

Robert Greenwald's Walmart documentary shows Hillary listening without a twitch or even nod of the head to show agreement when someone was speaking to the board about abuses of workers.

[paulk]

88. no, the article is pretty clear on that

as she was the only member of a 16 person board that was pro-union, she chose to fight battles she felt she could win, rather than those she couldn't. Some will criticize her for this, some will call her a pragmatist.

All I'm saying is that it is not fair to paint Clinton as some sort of uper pro corporatist because of her time at Walmart. It's a cheap shot. It's a criticism that is out of context, and she did do some worthwhile things while there.

[moriah]

111. Nitpicking: it's AR not AK. She's not Palin. ;)

On the serious, given that I live in Benton County and work in the Wal-Mart environment (even if not directly for them) I agree... the company has changed a LOT since Sam's day, and it continues to change. For the last seven years I've been in their facilities on all levels (tho never out of the country) -- their home office, their stores, and their distribution centers, and have spoken to a lot of their workers. I'm a Chatty Cathy so they all opened up to me when on smoke breaks.

If you, or someone you know, are ever considering working for them without being a computer tech, best advice I can give is get a heavy equipment certification and work in one of their warehouses. I wouldn't work in their stores, the wages are waaaay too low... but they have a lot of motivation to care about worker safety in the DCs, and the pay is much better for less training required. Plus they really do revitalize rural areas since all of the DCs are put in places that have the cheapest property values for that large of a facility.

[Honeycombe8]

15. She's not qualified. Read up on the histories of those who have been confirmed in that past. nt

[cthulu2016]

29. Taft? Warren?

[bornskeptic]

86. I don't know that anyone was ever more qualified than Taft.

Ohio Superior Court Judge
U.S. Circuit Court Judge
Solicitor General
Law School Dean and Professor of Constitutional Law
Governor General of the Philipines
Governor of Cuba
Secretary of War
President of the United States

[cthulu2016]

94. My bad. I'd forgotten hus pre-SCOTUS judicial career

[DURHAM D]

30. I assume you are joking given that the bar for selection is under water.

Edit: Not one member of the original Warren Court had judicial experience.

William Rehnquist had no judicial experience.

[Honeycombe8]

87. Most have judicial experiee.

Some do not. But they were all distinguished in their field (law). Hillary has not primarily worked in law, and has not distinguished herself in that area, that I know of.

Rehnquist: Law school class valedictorian; law clerk at Supreme Court; he practiced law in private practice for many years; legal advisor to Goldwater; Assistant Attorney General in D.C. He lived his adult working life in the LEGAL area and became distinguished in the field (among Republicans).

Hillary Clinton: Yale Law School; congressional legal counsel (less than a year); named as partner of Rose Law Firm when she became the First Lady of Arkansas after marrying Bill Clinton; named twice as 100 most influential lawyers. The end of law experience. Nothing distinguished, compared to other Supreme Court Justices. In other words, she just had a few years of legal experience, MOST of it connected with her position of being married to the governor. She became distinguished in other areas besides law, but an appointment to the S.Ct. is an appointment in the LEGAL field.

Ruth Ginsburg: Harvard and Columbia law schools; the first woman to be on two major law reviews (Harvard Law Review, Columbia Law Review); turned down for S.Ct. clerkship in 1960 because she was a woman; research associate then associate director of Columbia Law School regarding international law; co-authored book on judicial procedure in Sweden (had to learn Swedish before writing the book); professor of law at Rutgers; co-found Women's Rights Law Reporter (1st law journal in country to focus on women's rights); taught law at Columbia University for 8 years; co-authored casebook study on sex discrimination; taught at Tulane University Law School summer program; has received doctorates at several law schools and fellowships at a couple more; ACLU's general counsel; co-found Women's Rights Project at ACLU and became the chief litigator for it; argued several landmark cases in front of the U. S. S.Ct.; appointed to U.S. Court of Appeals by Jimmy Carter, where she served for 13 years.

[DURHAM D]

101. You are wasting your energy.

See my post #28 below.

[taterguy]

17. About the same as I feel about my alma mater (UNC) winning a football national championship

It would be fun and exciting but it will never happen.

[Ikonoklast]

62. Assume it happens. Good judtice, or no?

And UNC doesn't cheat enough to win that one.

[taterguy]

70. I have no idea, I'm not willing to subject myself to most of what the SC does

Almost all of their caseload consists of business cases that I have no interest in.

I have doubts about her willing to restrict police powers but that's just a perception I have.

The work is done by clerks and I don't know anything about Clinton's capabilities for hiring and managing people.

The fun thing is that you never really know what someone will do on the Court. Once they have a lifetime gig they make some choices you might not expect.

ps: UNC cheats plenty in football. Butch Davis, sleaze incarnate. Even with cheating they still couldn't win more than 8 games in a season.

[Ikonoklast]

75. That's why i placed the caveat, 'enough', in there.

They need to bring their Cheat-Fu to a much higher level.

As to Hillary's staff capabilities, it is my understanding that she is one of the best at that aspect of politics.

Agree as to which direction one might head after confirmatio, but that could be considered the anomaly and not the norm.

[taterguy]

76. Moonlight Graham's alma mater tries to keep cheating to minimum

We leave that to Cow College down the road.

[Ikonoklast]

82. No, they keep from getting caught cheating at a minimum.

The ones that are really good at it don't get caught for years.

[RB TexLa]

18. Too far outside of the norm. Positions too well known

[Ikonoklast]

54. Those are arguments against nomination. Assume she's confirmed.

Would Hillary be a good justice, or no?

[RB TexLa]

63. I think she would be. It's just totally against the culture the SC has.

We could put Barny Frank and Rick Santorum as an extreme to what we have now.

I know the current justices are more politically involved than recent past and what I just mentioned is extreme but I think Hillary, while not a much of a circus as say the extreme I mentioned still is too politically charged.

[Ikonoklast]

73. Do you blame the lightning rod for being struck by lightning?

I see Hillary as being described as some political extremist by those on the Right, but in all honesty, I just fail to see her as being politically extreme in any really significant way.

But that's what they do, anyone even remotely not on the far Right they paint as a Communist.

[RB TexLa]

78. I don't see her as extreme at all. That was why I gave the examples of extreme.

I just think it's a step in that direction. Some may want to go that direction with the SC, I just disagree.

How they describe her does play a part in what I called being politically charged.

[Ikonoklast]

84. But they'll call anyone nominated who's not at least a Center-Right nominee a Leftist Activist.

That's why we need to control the Senate and let them puff and blow all they want.

[TheKentuckian]

95. How is Barney Frank "extreme" or the equal opposite of Santorum?

He is pretty liberal on social issues but fairly "centrist" (and I don't mean that respectfully) on structural economic issues, and just mainstream Democrat on safety nets (hell, mainstream American until very recently), certainly not anti-military.

Painting him as extreme does a hell of a hit job on shrinking the ideological spectrum on the left while expanding it to the Reich by making those less whacky than Man on Dog less than extreme, even acceptable.

Why would you make such a statement???

[MoonRiver]

19. I would love it.

But in an interview about a year or so ago, she said she does not want and has never wanted that position.

[Angry Dragon]

21. Not qualified

[cthulu2016]

22. Would she be qualified to be attorney general?

[Angry Dragon]

37. possibly

[Ikonoklast]

26. Why not? We used to have SC appointees from other than strictly scholarly or judicial

backgrounds, and some of the appointees from the Right are eminently qualified on paper, they're just plain reactionary in their rulings.

[Angry Dragon]

40. It is my opinion she is not qualified

You need people on the SC that can put their politics aside and judge the laws on their merits

[treestar]

25. Not all that well qualified

Never having been a judge.

Not much legal practice in her background, at least, compared to many others who would be more qualified.

[DURHAM D]

28. No longer matters re: Clarence Thomas

Although I believe Hillary would be the first to say she is not qualified it is important to remember that the bar is on the ground.

[treestar]

36. That's true

Clarence Thomas was one of the Republicans' most cynical appointments/acts.

[Ikonoklast]

45. Got beaten to it. Thomas' appointment set the bar at 'Crummy'.

[baldguy]

32. How about Bill Clinton?

If you're not worried about mass apoplexy among the fascist wing of the GOP.

[Ikonoklast]

77. One Clinton at a time, please.

[bigwillq]

120. I vote for Chelsea

[MilesColtrane]

33. I'd prefer somebody more liberal, and yes, younger.

[Ikonoklast]

79. Liberal in which ways?

I see Hillary as being pretty much on the side of individual rights, do you think that might let her side with people against corporate interests?

Her perceived corporate leanings seem to be the negative here.


Younger, yeah, I agree, I'll give you that.

[TheKentuckian]

96. I don't really see the strength on individual rights other than choice.

She is terrible on the second amendment, I see no reason to be optimistic on privacy, no indication she isn't a drug warrior, would appear to lean toward the state on assembly and speech zones, seems to be in agreement with the administration on due process.

I see better than an extreme reactionary that the TeaPubliKlans would nominate but pretty much an awful choice for a Democrat to put forward.

The main point seems to be to piss off the TeaPubliKlans, well if that is the focus then nominate a liberal, they will howl like their hair is on fire.

[MilesColtrane]

100. Well, let's see.

I'm not sure just how pro-union she is.

She used to be on WalMart's board, and she pressed the company about environmental and women's issues, but never really made a stink about some of the anti-union actions the company was taking.

She sponsored a bill to make burning the flag a crime.

She doesn't believe in raising the cap on income for Social Security taxes.

She voted for the original Patriot Act.

She's never come right out and publicly endorsed same-sex marriage.

She opposes decriminalization of marijuana.

She introduced a bill that would federally regulate the content of video games.


There's a lot of little stances like this that may just be the by-product of her trying to win nationwide elections.

She is basically a mainstream Democratic politician. I'd like to see a Supreme Court Justice with views farther left than that.

on edit: Perhaps the most practical reason to avoid her nomination would be that she would never be ratified by the Senate. (unless the balance of power changes in 2012 to keep the GOP from being able to filibuster)

[AtomicKitten]

105. +

I believe it is a myth that she is or ever was a real liberal. She started out as a Republican and Goldwater girl in college at the age when most form their political ideology. She served one year right out of college at the Childrens Defense Fund, one year only in the nonprofit sector and the rest of her career in the corporate sector. She supported and advocated for her hubbie's policies like NAFTA and welfare reform, and economic policies such as banking deregulation and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Her vote for the Iraq war was unequivocal and she never backed down from it. Her hubris in threatening annihilation of Iran was an eye-opener and gave many Democrats pause. So, if folks are looking for a liberal appointment to the USSC, she's not your girl. I suspect she will join her husband on the global stage, a venue large enough to accommodate both their egos.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Too moderate. There are any number of people more qualified and liberal.

[hughee99]

38. No, not in favor at all.

I'd like to see a professional jurist, someone with a considerable amount of experience deciding court cases, be nominated for the supreme court rather than a politician who hasn't practiced law in about 20 years and spent that time playing partisan politics.

[SoCalDem]

39. Modern justices almost always need a law degree

and then there's the sticky confirmation process.

and of course I don't think she would want it

[cthulu2016]

43. She was "one of america's top 100 layers" in the ABA magazine while in private practice

She was a practicing attorney for a long time.

(Much of the supposed whitewater scandal involved her legal career.)

[SoCalDem]

47. Oops.. I forgot about the Rose law firm..

but then she has not practiced in decades..
and I don't think she wants to be cooped up in the court or being all that close to the creepy ones there.

Can;t see her wanting to spend much time with Scalia/Thomas/Alito

[Posteritatis]

41. I like Supreme Court justices who have actually, y'know, been judges before. (nt)

[cthulu2016]

55. Thurgood Marshall?

[jberryhill]

57. Hillary Clinton has never appeared before an appeals court of any kind

[Ikonoklast]

60. We already have a lot of that. Been judges for years before the SC.

Not seeing how that translates into not being a politician in a black robe, though.

[MineralMan]

44. I seriously doubt she would be nominated.

It's not a matter of qualifications or how she might vote, but my doubts come from her notoriety as a public figure. Most SCOTUS nominations are jurists of long standing and little publicity. As the highest court in the land, and the court that must make critical decisions, anyone with a long public record and fame is unlikely to be a good nominee. Nominating Hillary Clinton would generate a huge amount of controversy that would override serious debate about the nomination.

That's why SCOTUS nominees are usually someone you never heard of.

[Ikonoklast]

48. Assume she was nominated and confirmed, though, for the sake of discussion.

Would she do a good job as SC justice?

[MineralMan]

52. I'm sure she would.

But, I still don't believe such a nomination will happen.

[gateley]

46. I trust her, but agree w/those who would prefer someone more liberal. One thing

about Hillary is that I don't think she'd back down to those RW fucks. I think our latest additions probably haven't developed the spine that Hillary has.

Oops -- edit. Referred to the RW fucks as LW fucks. Gotta keep those fucks straight!

[Ikonoklast]

64. Please stop fucking around. This is a serious discussion.

Or moving the fucks around, now I'm confused.

[Ikonoklast]

69. I'm not sure she'd want it either, but when the POTUS asks you to serve,

I think it would be a tough call on Hillary's part.

I can see how she might want to take her leave of public life, though.

[The Straight Story]

53. With over 300 million people in the US, why her? (nt)

[Marnie]

59. But Why not?

[Posteritatis]

85. "Why not?" is among the worst possible reasons to put anyone in any high office. (nt)

[Ikonoklast]

67. It has to be someone. For the sake of discussion.

Theoretical spitballing.

Looking for opinions.

You know, asking a question to see what others migh have to say in repsonse.

What do you think, good or bad?

[The Straight Story]

93. I think I would rather have someone with experience and a degree of some sort

in constitutional law, and as far experience - someone who has been in the courts with a record we could examine.

[Ikonoklast]

102. I like the 'record we could examine' position.

Many times a politician votes not in a way that conforms exactly to their political opinions, but in the way that is currently the most expediant, and those types of votes are used as ammunition by the opposition.


Judges have a pretty hard record to look at.

They rule as they see where their interpretation of the law lies, and that is a pretty good indicator of future rulings.

[Marnie]

58. She is a lawyer, but not a constitutional lawyer or a sitting judge.

The latter two would be against her. And she has not practiced in something like a quarter of a century

She was elected and reelected in a minority dominated area of NYC. That speaks of a populist appeal.
She did attempt to get universal health care for the country.
She obviously has extensive executive and international diplomatic experience as head of the State Dept.

Her age is perhaps against her, but she still could sit for 15 or 20 years.

There is not not much ammo against her that the Republicans have not already used and she has survived and thrived despite that.

The Republicans might actually explode themselves with their hatred if she were appointed.
It would be both horrible and wonderful to watch them.

If I were Obama I would do it , if she were willing, becasue he might be able to get a lot done behind the smoke screen of Republican acrimony.
However the Republican would also use the smoke screen.

Also, too. Look at what has happened to the otherwise unknown E. Warren as a result of the Republican's elevation of her PR profile. Public sympathy for and knowledge of her is sky high thanks to the Republicans.

It would also etch their hatred and sexism in stone for the next century even more deeply than it already is.

[Gman]

72. The best choice possible in the entire country

None would be a better pick.

[Ikonoklast]

80. This is a discussion, or one like it, that may come up in the very near future.

And it is going to be a huge one.

[TheKentuckian]

81. I feel someone should explain why such a thing is at all desirable, aside from

the SOP TeaPubliKlan gnashing of teeth that is all but inevitable to the point we could nominate an Alito type and they would reflexively wail and scream for a week or two before "reluctantly" accepting the nomination.

[Ikonoklast]

90. I think they'll do that no matter who gets nominated.

Unless it's a Clarence Thomas clone.

[book_worm]

89. I think she would be a superb SCOTUS selection.

[karynnj]

91. The Republicans can't stop anyone from being nominated, but they could refuse to confirm her

I agree that a younger person will be selected. I also think that it would be better to nominate someone with a deeper record as a lawyer and judge. (This is NOT anti- Hillary, I would say the same of John Kerry, who is better on those issues anyway.)

[Joe the Revelator]

97. I hate Hillary, and I think she would be an awesome SCJ

[NightTemplar]

98. love her... she is thoughtful and has the perfect makeup for a SCJ. nt

[99Forever]

103. I agree on both of your reservations..

.. especially the second one. Beyond that is almost impossible task of getting her approved.

[Fire Walk With Me]

104. It's got a good beat, I can dance to it, I give it a 9.

[Tx4obama]

106. It is NOT going to happen for two reasons ...

1) Her age, she will be 65 years old when at the end of the year.
It's highly unlikely that President Obama would appoint anyone to the SCOTUS who is more than 55 years old.
List of current Supreme Court Justices - fifth column shows age at time of appointment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Membership

2) Hillary has already said she wants to retire to private life, then work on women's issues globally
and have time to spend with her grand babies when they arrive.

[Beacool]

108. She does not want to be in the SC.

Even though she keeps saying that she wants to retire, I still hope that she changes her mind and runs for president in 2016.

[Raffi Ella]

109. This!

I can't see her wanting to be a SCJ, too stifling/dull, even though she'd be amazing at it. But yeah, she's gonna be too busy running for President of The United States of America in 2016 anyway. *fingers crossed*

[Iggo]

112. What are her feelings?

[barbtries]

113. i think she'd make a good judge.

and as a judge she would be free to act on her conscience and her knowledge of the law and let the politicians do the politicking.

[yellerpup]

114. I'd love to see her on the SCOTUS.

She would be great.

[mimitabby]

115. love it!!

[Fearless]

116. I think it should go to someone who's focus is constitutional law.

Nothing against her, there are far more qualified judges out there based on experience in the legal system.

[Liquorice]

117. She should have been president. Then they would have really wailed. nt

[Charlemagne]

118. doesnt seem like a good fit for her

[former9thward]

119. She is too old.

She has never been a judge or even appeared before an appeals court. Also she flunked the bar exam and that would be used against her in the confirmation process.