Here's what Obama should do when president: have Hillary Clinton replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[zulchzulu]

The next President will have up to three new Supreme Court appointments. If it's McCain, chances that the Supreme Court does a lot of damage would affect a generation or more.

In lieu of the possibility that Hillary Clinton may not be in the Obama cabinet, here's hoping that she could be nominated with strong Democratic numbers to override the Republican usual suspects and take Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court. She has been in poor health and has mad it known she may resign soon.

Current U.S. Supreme Court Justices with possible replacements in bold

Chief Justice


John Roberts - 51 years old

Associate Justices


Samuel Alito- 56 years old


Stephen Breyer - 67 years old


Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 73 years old


Anthony Kennedy - 69 years old


Antonin Scalia - 70 years old


David Hackett Souter - 66 years old


John Paul Stevens - 86 years old


Clarence Thomas - 57 years old

I would be proud to see Hillary Clinton move from being a former presidential candidate to a Supreme Court justice and keep a hold on the young right wing members who are itching to turn America into a theocratic nightmare.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. It is weird when being appointed to the Supreme Court

Feels like a concession.

To me.

[JeanGrey]

8. She isn't qualified.

[PBS Poll-435]

9. What is your litmus test?

And according to the constitution, ...

How is She NOT qualified?

[Lucky 13]

21. Well, for starters, she failed the dc bar exam...

[PBS Poll-435]

29. And....

I am skimming through my pocket-sized Constitution...and I don't see where the

DC Bar exam "requirement" exists.

[Yael]

43. It isn't a requirement -- it is a preference

Just backing up the person you are responding to as I had the same arguments below this sub-thread.

[PBS Poll-435]

46. Well....As soon as Scooter Libby gets his bar credentials re-instated...

Did we always have DC Lawyers/Lobbyists on the SC?




Nope.


And Sandra Day O'Connor didn't pass the DC bar either, as far as I know.

[Yael]

55. Did I miss Scooter being nominated for SCOTUS?

[PBS Poll-435]

58. Guess so. Where have you been?

:rofl:






Your DC Bar "preference" is an exercise in stretching.

And you tore a muscle.

[Yael]

LOL!

No -- it is a preference.

As I stated below, I am a JRE fan and I don't want to see him in that role either. There is a huge difference between jurists/Constitutional attorneys and trial/corporate attorneys.

Besides, the SCOTUS won't give her the air time that she craves.

Governor of New York -- IF the good people of the state will have her -- would be more suited to her personality.

[PBS Poll-435]

63. Tell me the last 3 Supreme Court justices that were accredited with the DC Bar.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Lucky 13]

62. You don't think maybe we should put someone on the court

who studied hard and passed the bar the first time?

[PBS Poll-435]

64. She did.

In Arkansas.

Just like Sandra Day-O'Connor did in Arizona.

[Lucky 13]

77. Why is it so crazy to want a Justice that didn't FAIL a bar exam?

As has been pointed out... if it were my decision, NO, we would not have someone on the SCOTUS that failed a bar exam. I don't see why that is so crazy. We want the best and the brightest, don't we?

Not to MENTION I think it could do us some REAL good to have a respected constitutional law expert on the court. That should be the first goal.

Besides, she has show horrifically poor judgment in this campaign. What's more, her MORALS have been called into question by many (including me).

So no. I don't see anyway, i could ever be for putting her on the court. But that's just my opinion. What actually happens is up to Obama. I trust his judgment. But it's also my opinion that he would never actually choose her for all the reasons listed above and more.

[PBS Poll-435]

81. She Passed the F*in Bar Exam

In Arkansas

[Lucky 13]

83. Yeah and she failed one in DC.

[PBS Poll-435]

92. One out of two ain't bad.

I think you are forgetting her move to the "Natural State."

[Lucky 13]

93. ?

:shrug:

[JeanGrey]

88. Really? Then maybe we should've put "judge judy" on there.

She was actually a judge.

[JeanGrey]

87. Well flunking the bar exam numerous times would be a start!

[PBS Poll-435]

91. She passed it in Arkansas

And please add some Splenda to your lemonade.

[JeanGrey]

106. Let her be a judge there then -

by the way I don't eat sugar, nor do I use artificial sweetners - don't you know they are bad for you?

[texastoast]

32. How so?

Bad grades? Too many attempts at the bar exam? Now those are reasons I can accept.

However, IF Hillary can see that her abilities can be far more reaching for far longer and that she can actually have a tremendous impression on the future beyond what any president can hope for, I do believe that she is quite capable of researching and conceptualizing huge legal concepts and performing satisfactorily as a justice.

If she wants to.

[Yael]

2. SHe failed the DC Bar exam.

Thanks, but I will take a constitutional scholar, not a hack corporate attorney.

[PBS Poll-435]

7. Six times a charm to pass the DC Bar Exam

Like my cousin Vinny.

[DJ13]

14. You may not believe it, but you dont have to be a lawyer to be a USSC judge

Thats the truth.

[DJ13]

17. She probably wont take it even if offered

She would be "just another woman who was on the bench", and her ego demands she be the first at something.

[Yael]

42. I am aware of that.

Bush nominated his maid for cryin' out loud.

She isn't a jurist. She is a policy wonk (wonkette?) Their job isn't to make law, it is to interpret it. For that, I would think that someone who has a background as a jurist (or Constitutional law) would be MUCH more appropriate for the role.

I am a HUGE Edwards fan, and I don't want to see him nominated for the SCOTUS either. He belongs in the AG spot just like Hillary needs to be a law maker.

[woolldog]

70. failing the DC bar isn't a big deal.

Her lack of judicial experience is.

[Fresh_Start]

3. if the dems hold the congress and the white house

they should expand the Supreme Court to dilute the Roberts effect and pack the seats with moderate judges

[PBS Poll-435]

11. Moderate Justices?

No thanks.

You know the heartburn that "moderate" GHWB appointees have caused the fanatics on the right.

We need Breyer/Ginsburg quality people.

[jwirr]

24. I have thought that for a long time BUT just listen to the pubs whine. nt

[uberllama42]

57. Don't you think the sitting Supreme Court would block that?

There's no Constitutional basis to do it, but that hasn't stopped them in extreme cases before.

[Fresh_Start]

65. the Supreme Court can't block it

the size is not dictated by the Constitution.
In fact, the size has been changed several times before in our nations history

The opposing party might try to block it in Congress.
But its within Congresses rights to expand or reduce the size of the Supreme Court

[uberllama42]

99. As I said

There's no Constitutional basis to do it, but that hasn't stopped them in extreme cases before.

They just made it up as they went along in Bush v. Gore, so why wouldn't they do the same in this case? FDR's Court-packing was blocked by Congress, but his Supreme Court wasn't crazy, they just didn't think the New Deal was Constitutional. I don't trust the conservatives on the Court not to simply fabricate a justification. Remember, two of them are Bush appointees.

[grannylib]

4. My thought exactly - that or Secretary of Health and Human Services

maybe...but I think the Supremes would be a GREAT spot for her!
She's obviously as well qualified for this as she is to be President.

[gkhouston]

90. how is she well-qualified to be a Supreme Court justice? I'd really

like to see significant judicial experience in anyone being appointed to a lifetime position on the highest court in the land. I could see her as Secretary of Health and Human Services but not as a justice.

[grannylib]

107. You do have a point there; I forgot she's not had actual judicial

experience, just lawyerly stuff.
Thanks for pointing that out!
:hi:

[MannyGoldstein]

5. She Seems To Have A Problem With Rules

I'm not sure that I'd want her making up laws out of thin air.

[Lucky 13]

26. No shit.

Whatever is convenient to her at that moment... that's how it would go. Uh uh. No way.

[GoneOffShore]

6. Not a good idea - Replace a liberal with a neoCon?

Hillary's a DLC'er and would probably move rightward as she gets older.

[zulchzulu]

15. I don't agree with some of her politics, but she certainly would stand for women's rights

To be honest, it would also be a position where she could indeed stand on her own without her husband.

I think she'd be a good justice.

[ellisonz]

10. No No No.

[DURHAM D]

12. Hillary is not qualified to be on the bench.

On the other hand, neither are some of the other SC members.

She needs to remain in the Senate.

Let me also add - Hillary supporters are absolutely adamant that she should not be VP. Why board a sinking ship?

[PBS Poll-435]

18. Not this Hillary Supporter...

I want her fighting for Obama and a Democratic "WAVE" this year.

[newmajority]

19. And Roberts and Alito ARE??

I think there's a combined 4 years experience as a judge between the two of them.

I'm actually ambivalent about Hillary on the SC, but I had to point that out.

[zulchzulu]

35. She's at least a moderate version of Clarence Thomas

I can't see how she would not be damaging... and it takes her to a level where she could change her legacy from where it unfortunately seems now.

[DURHAM D]

39. I see reading comprehension is not your strong point -

re-read my comment.

[SoonerPride]

13. She is not qualified for the job.

When has she even sat on a the bench at a trial?

Ever?

I want people with great careers in juris prudence sitting on the bench making these tough decisions, not a political person.

Sorry.

[PBS Poll-435]

23. That may be a *real* qualification for a Circuit Judge or an Appelate Judge,

but the USSC is different.

It does not require a ruling on every motion or objection.

It is about reasonable consideration and intelectual creativity.

You have to take a 220 year-old document and make it relevent to today.

[patrice]

56. I'm undecided on this, but . . . "creativity"? doesn't she appear to be kind of a Reactionary? nt

[PBS Poll-435]

60. Not by her voting record. Or her past. Or her writings.

She is a consistant liberal.

And if the IWR vote still has folks in a tizzy, than kindly remember that the USSC does not send young men and women into war.

[lastliberalintexas]

66. For good or bad, the Supreme Court has always been very political

The majority of real legal decisions are made at the trial and appellate levels, the SC makes the tough political decisions politicians don't want to. Like Plessy, Brown, Tinker, Roe, Cohen and Lawrence, just to name a few. Not to mention one of the most political of them all, Bush v. Gore.

[Peacetrain]

16. I was thinking that a few days ago

but the incidents of the last few days.. my opinion has completely changed

[Lucky 13]

20. She FAILED the fucking DC BAR EXAM.

that combined with her hideous lack or dignity, grace or morals excludes her from consideration.

[notesdev]

22. As a general rule

Politicians should not be appointed as judges.

The two jobs are polar opposites. The former is a professional policy advocate, the latter's role is to be completely impartial.

Any person who is well-qualified as a politician should be disqualified as a potential judge.

[lastliberalintexas]

48. Except Clinton realy isn't well qualified as a politician

She really is more of a policy wonk who likes the fine print and details more than the glad handing of campaigning. She would very likely pull a Douglas on us and go fairly left to moderately left once she was no longer subject to the Clinton Agenda and political campaigns.


And even though she's been a politican, I'd support her appointment almost as much as I would have supported Cuomo's.

[zulchzulu]

68. Earl Warren was a California governor

Without doing any research, I'm sure many Supreme Court judges were politicians.

[sellitman]

25. She has no morals and would be terrible on the Supreme Court.

Pass

[TBF]

27. The ironic thing is the ones I want to replace are all young ...

but I would turn to con law scholars first. Why does Hillary have to be given a consolation prize? None of the other candidates have been promised anything (Richardson, Edwards, Biden etc...).

[samdogmom]

28. Sorry to be so blunt...but are you F'NG KIDDING ME?????

Justice Ginsberg is one of our friends....WHY DO WE WANT HILLARY TO REPLACE HER????? Please explain...I do not get your point!

[PBS Poll-435]

33. She is ill. And old.

[samdogmom]

45. Give me a break!

You truly need to figure out how important these Supreme Court appointments are...they are lifetime appointments. We need a President who takes this appointment process seriously AND we need to hold on to all of our allies on the court. Ms. Ginsburg is simply not replaceable at this point!

[PBS Poll-435]

51. And no one is forcing her off the bench.

And no where in the Constitution does it say we are limited to 9 Justices.


I worry about RBG because she is fabulous. And she sees the Constitution like I do.

[zulchzulu]

40. Ginsberg has been ill for a few years...

I think I illustrated that in the OP.

[Cha]

30. Nah, hilary will still be

running for the nomination.

[polmaven]

31. May I ask why you

specify Bader Ginsburg? It is likely that Justice Stevens will retire before Justice Bader Ginsburg.

[PBS Poll-435]

37. The cancer

[David in Canada]

34. Not the best choice.

The best choice for Ruth Bader-Ginsberg's Supreme Court seat would be Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio. She is a former prosecutor and is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. She is also a progressive.

Bonus: She would be the first African-American female Supreme Court justice.

[lastliberalintexas]

53. The next president will likely get a chance to appoint 2 or 3

Hopefully that next president is Obama, and Tubbs Jones or Clinton would be a hell of a lot better than Edith Jones (likely under McCain and god awful scary).

[blm]

36. She sides with the secrecy and privilege of CLOSED GOVERNMENT. Do we need another judge like that?

No way.

[PBS Poll-435]

38. And she is TOTALLY going to suppress the BCCI report!!!

:tinfoilhat:

[blm]

41. You mean CONTINUE to keep books closed on BCCI, of course. Bill did throughout the 90s.

Or weren't you interested enough in your nation's governance to notice?

The truth is there if you cared more for the accurate keeping of our nation's historic record than you do politicians who are talented charmers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6250885&mesg_id=6250885

[PBS Poll-435]

44. ROFL

It never gets old.

It really never does.

[newmajority]

47. So the crimes of the Bush Crime Family are a laughing matter to you?

No wonder you supported Hillary..... :puke:

[PBS Poll-435]

49. No. Their crimes are self-evident.

My "concern" is over the constant spamming of GDP threads.

It is kinda creeeeeeeeeeeepy.

[blm]

Not when one of the candidates protected BushInc on BCCI matters and

we have been stuck with the consequences.

[PBS Poll-435]

54. I think I just peed.

Thanks A LOT.
:eyes:

:rofl:

[blm]

85. I'll alert Penthouse .....

they could use you.

[blm]

50. True - Unresolved BCCI matters are part of our everyday lifew/Bush2, 9-11 and Iraq war.

Maybe one day you'll seek out the National Security Archives and spend some time there because you realize there is so much you never studied about your nation's recent history that effects us now...every day.

[PBS Poll-435]

52. You are too much.

:rofl:

One day...

[blm]

71. You are not enough.....

not curious enough to seek truth.....

[PBS Poll-435]

74. Now, now...I was being complementary...

And you have chosen to be insulting.

[blm]

86. well....the history of exchanges wouldn't point to 'complimentary' being a logical deduction.

.

[PBS Poll-435]

89. And the majority of my posts, lately, don't end up "deleted"

So...

:tinfoilhat:

[karynnj]

100. Nor do BLM's - and her point is relevent here

The broader comment could be that even if you constrained yourselves to the Senate, I could easily list - without going to any resources 10 or so Senators who had done something or said something that showed huge reverence for the Constitution and a passionate desire to protect it and American values. All have shown integrity and principle over a long period of time. Hillary is NOT among them:

The four that most readily come to mind and the reasons why are:

1) Russ Feingold - who more than anyone has fought for the rights that the Constitution guarantees to citizens on issues such as privacy.

2) John Kerry - who gave a brilliant speech on Alito based on Alito being outside the main stream on issues such as unitary president during the filibuster he led with Kennedy when no one else would. In addition, he was the author and Sponsor on the bill demanding information on secret prisons that "terrorist suspects" were sent to. He has been eloquent on dissent being a right and a responsibility and has fought the government when it has broken the law - from Vietnam, to illegally funding the Contras, to BCCI. His speech in 1971, before he went to law school showed more moral courage, integrity and respect for law, both American and international than most lawyers show in an entire career. Kerry also had experience as a prosecutor. (PS I think Kerry is too needed on Iraq, global warming and other things in the Senate - but he tops HRC on every dimension here - he won the nomination and likely would have won the election with enough voting machines. He also did it with a high road campaign and has a very clean record as a long term public servant. PS he passed the MA bar exam immediately out of law school and within a year and a half he was running the Middlesex DA office as First Deputy to an ailing DA.)

3) Chris Dodd - listen to his speech on either immunity for telecoms under FISA or on the torture bill.

4) Pat Leahy - listen to his speech on the torture bill

There are many others and I wont list all I can think of - because I know there are others that I do not know enough about. My point is that HRC does not need a consolation prize - no one else got one. In her case things like cattle futures and travelgate both should be stoppers for the Supreme Court.

[Carrieyazel]

59. And if Barack loses in the fall, what would Hillary do then?

[zulchzulu]

61. OK...let me clarify...

While I don't think she is the most qualified and certainly would have to run into the vetting process to be selected, I think it would be something to offer her from a historical aspect.

There is a great analysis about this subject:

And with just one woman--75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg--now serving on the nine-member Court, a President Obama would no doubt feel considerable pressure to nominate another. "The fact is, it's disgraceful for the Supreme Court to have only one woman," Tribe said. "It was frankly disgraceful for there to be two women when Sandra Day O'Connor was there."

Just three of the 47 justices confirmed during the 20th century went directly from the Senate to the Court, according to the Senate Historical Office. The last time was in 1945, when President Truman crossed the aisle to tap freshman Sen. Harold Burton, R-Ohio.

A bit more recently, a high court bargain was struck to clear a presidential candidate's path to his party's nomination. In 1952, Republican Earl Warren, the popular governor of California and his party's 1948 vice presidential nominee, threatened to barnstorm the nation campaigning for Dwight Eisenhower's rival, Robert Taft. To keep Warren in check and to secure his state's vote-rich delegation, Eisenhower reportedly promised to appoint him to the Supreme Court at the first opportunity. "It was clear the Supreme Court was a way to appease him, if a Cabinet position was not," Yalof said. "A deal was cut on the floor of the Republican convention." Eisenhower used a recess appointment in October 1953 to elevate Warren to chief justice. The Senate confirmed him in March 1954.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/05/justice_hillary.html

It's been done before. I am guessing there will be pressure to give her a shot at getting on the bench.

[samdogmom]

67. Nope!!! Truly A STUPID IDEA!

Sorry...but Justice Ginsberg is a FRIEND of Democrats...I DO NOT WANT HER REPLACED. I WANT THE CRAZY IDIOTS LIKE Thomas. Scalia, Alito; and ROBERTS replaced!!!!

[zulchzulu]

73. OK, so how are you going to replace Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts?

Let me guess, you own a atom bomb.

[lastliberalintexas]

76. You don't seem to understand how the Court works

Or are you aware of some impeachable offense that they have committed that just isn't public knowledge yet? Otherwise, those right wingers aren't going anywhere. Lifetime appointments are funny that way.


Ginsburg and Stevens are retiring, likely soon, whether we want them to or not. Ginsburg is probably trying to hold out for a Dem president, but may not be able to if we lose this fall.

I am not saying that replacement should or should not be Clinton. But it's idiotic to bury your head in the sand about the impending retirement of at least Ginsburg.

[newmajority]

79. How about the impeachable offense that EVERYONE knows about.

"Bush v Gore 12/12/2000"

That should be enough to take out Scalia and Thomas. Kennedy too, although he's not quite as bad as the other two.

[PBS Poll-435]

69. Nobody wants to be "replaced."

But having a steller appointment ready makes it easier for one to retire.

[morningglory]

72. Naw, too old. I want some 14-yr-old progressives...nt

[ShadowLiberal]

75. Much as I'd be comfortable with her making the right decisions, I'd prefer a younger liberal

Take a look at the people on the court. The youngest three, all in their 50's (one in their very low 50's) are conservatives. The oldest two are liberals, most likely to die off from old age and bad health. A younger judge is better for our chances of keeping that spot in the court on our side. A young judge in their 50's can reign for a few decades, and resign at the right time, when a democrat can put another liberal on the court to replace them.

60 is certainly not too old though, but I'd just prefer someone who can hang around longer if they live to be 80+.

[lastliberalintexas]

78. That's actually my biggest problem with Clinton

I actually think she might go a little further left on the Court, kind of like BLack, Douglas and Warren did once they were free to actually consider their decisions with the luxury of a lifetime appointment providing security.

But I want a super duper rising star 35 year old Socialist on the bench. :)


Course, given that the next president likely gets to replace 2 or 3, we might be able to have both.

[ElkHunter]

80. I am not a Hillary fan, but...

...I would certainly support her appointment to the Supreme Court. As a Senator she probably wouldn't recieve much serious opposition during her comfirmation hearings.

Of course such an appointment should be contingent on Hillary earnestly backing and campaigning for Barack Obama this fall.

[sniffa]

82. Is she really qualified for that job?

Sure, compared to the last picks she's a gem, but even so..

:shrug:

[zulchzulu]

84. To be honest...other women would be more qualified...but...

Maybe I'm jumping the gun on this, but from a political standpoint, it could be a good move in the absolute correct conditions. Perhaps I feel like Hillary Clinton could do a good job as well as it would FINALLY take the Bill Clinton shadow off of her.

She certainly would stand for women's rights, which is a big concern. Is she perfect? Um... GOBAMA!

[nebula]

94. The country needs another political appointment to the SC

like it needs a hole in the head.

HC would be a terrible, terrible choice.

I would lose all respect for an Obama administration if he were to make it.

[PBS Poll-435]

96. ROFL

Talk about "Countin' Chickens."

:rofl:

Can you offer any kind of olive branch to HRC or her supporters?

[Hippo_Tron]

95. She's 60 years old, absolutely not

We should appoint people no older than 50. 45 would be stellar. Clarence Thomas got appointed in his early 40's and unfortunately it will be a long fucking time before he's gone.

[AlCzervik]

97. Patrick Leahy would be a good choice.

[PBS Poll-435]

98. He would!!!!!!!

In 1980.

[Unsane]

102. Yeah he would, if you want a justice who will be dead within 5 to 10 years.

[Unsane]

101. Worst idea ever. Too old, lack of legal scholarship, failed DC bar.

[AZBlue]

103. She's in her 60s - most Presidents like younger candidates to have greater impact.

It's not like she's in her 90s but she might be a bit older than they're hoping for in a nominee. Plus, can we really trust her?

[fujiyama]

104. I don't think she'd be a particularly good fit

She has no particular experience working in the federal judiciary. I don't think think there is anything wrong with appointing a person with political experience and activism (Ginsberg was a member of the ACLU I believe and maybe even had a leadership position with them), but I do think we should look to appoint people with some scholarly legal experience as well as judiciary experience. In that sense, Obama would be a better pick, but obviously he has other plans...

Seriously speaking though, we should look at people like Lawrence Lessig (I think the first name is Lawrence), but he's been on top of laws related to technology and copyrights. I'm sure we could even find many qualified Clinton appointees on appeals and circuit courts around the nation. That's where presidents often choose SC picks from.

Regardless, this is silly. We have a long way to go before choosing SC picks. Obama needs to win first and it will be a hard fought and nasty campaign. Nothing is assured.

[Unsane]

105. I've advocated Lessig for YEARS.

I'd like to see him on the Ninth or D.C. Circuit first, though, to see how his philosphy fleshes out. He's kind of a wildcard. He NEEDS to be on the federal appellate bench for sure--a brilliant mind.