I don't want Hillary to be VP, I want her to be Supreme Court Justice

[LostinVA]

I don't want Kaine to be VP.

[thewiseguy]

1. Hillary as the Supreme Court Justice? LOOOOOOOOOOOL

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

3. Showing lots of stuff about yourself there

:eyes:

[thewiseguy]

5. Wait were you serious?

:D

[LostinVA]

7. Shoo -- I think "Adult Swom" may be on

[Skittles]

50. yeah, as if we didn't already no it too

[salguine]

72. Yeah, careful, you "showed lots of stuff about yourself".

[LostinVA]

93. OOOOO -- your snark at me is so wounding

:eyes:

[terrya]

96. I think Hillary would make a fine Supreme Court Justice.

My only hesitation about it is that while she would be on the Court for at least 25 years, I would hope that President Obama would select moderate/liberal men or women in their early to mid 50's...such as a Samuel Alito or a John Roberts, like Bush did. We want someone on the Court for decades. Hillary, while she would be a fine voice for us on abortion, GLBT rights and other issues, is 60 and not as young as an Alito or a Roberts or a Clarence Thomas when he was nominated to SCOTUS.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

109. why don't you make an argument, at least?

this is a discussion board, you know. most people come on here to "discuss" things - not just ridicule without even an explanation. At least it used to that way until folks like you showed up.

[Danger Mouse]

120. What's wrong with that?

[JustAnotherGen]

2. I'm not laughing

I kind of like that idea. Roe V. Wade would be safe until the day she dies. She's tough as nails and won't back down on a tough decision . . . Yeah - I like that. :-)

[LostinVA]

4. It's not meant as a joke -- I think she'd be a great one

[burythehatchet]

15. I'm taking up a colection to buy you a GPS.

The single major threat to our way of life is fascism. Fascism is the merging of corporate power and government authority. Hillary is an avowed corporatist. Scalito and Roberts would love her. Yes, we'll be able to abort fetuses for decades, but it won't mean shit under a fascist regime.

[LostinVA]

16. Take your patronizing attitude and give it to someone else

TRY, for ONCE, to discuss something without an insult.

[burythehatchet]

21. That's a fair charge, and I won't fight it. But consider this,

you know how you rguys got/get soooo apoplectic when Obama people act like their guy is infallible? Now consider how you all seem to someone who isn't in love with Clinton. A two term senator who has not accomplished anything of significance other than her candidacy, has relinquished a leadership role in the senate for the sake of her presidential run, and you want her in the supreme court. This is just as bizarre to me as Obama worship is to you.

[cboy4]

33. You think Obama is going to nominate anyone more liberal

than Hillary?

LOL

She'd be great, and we need another female on the court to join Ruth and help protect women's rights.

[LostinVA]

36. Thanks, Damien!

[burythehatchet]

40. I can only see Ignored's subject line - When did this become about Obama?

:shrug:

I was under the impression that the discussion topic was HRC's )lack of) qualification for SCOTUS.

That's OK. I'm out. You guys console each other.

[cboy4]

51. I don't blame you for puting me on ignore. It must have

been sad for you losing debate after debate with me. :hug:

[TexasObserver]

95. "Hillary is an avowed corporatist. Scalito and Roberts would love her."

Quoting your post.

You're right, and I don't see how that can be denied.

My philosophy is that every state is entitled to elect any Democrat it wants to the senate, so if New York wants her as their senator, that is their right. If they accept her devotion to the fascist side of the business world, that's for New York.

But I don't want her having any other job, except one that she can be fired from by Obama if she screws it up, sells out, or cops an attitude, all of which she has proved she will do on occasion.

[paulk]

111. I guess we're really fucked if Obama wins, then.

Progressive Punch gave Hillary a 100% rating for being against corporate subsidies - tied for best in the Senate. Obama scored 30 points lower and ranked 28th.

Hillary haters like you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

[MissWaverly]

6. me too, she would give Scalia, Alito and Thomas hell

pure hell, she would not let them get away with trampling people to help out big business and special interests

[LostinVA]

9. I think Thomas would be a whimpering mess after ten minutes with her!

Scalia would have to go flog himself during a break.

[MissWaverly]

45. Yes, and she would not back down

we need someone to go after those "activist" judges like a pit bull and she would do that.

[Whisp]

13. are we talking about the same Hillary?

""pure hell, she would not let them get away with trampling people to help out big business and special interests""

she is very pro big business and spec interest.

actually I still wouldn't mind so much she be on the Court, but I should probably think on that for a while.

[MissWaverly]

42. this would be different

she would not be running for office but interpreting the law, this would be her chance to do something for women's rights

[Colobo]

8. Who do you want for VP?

[LostinVA]

12. I would like to see a female, but that won't happen

Even though there are some good Senators and Govs. I guess Biden.

[Rhythm]

10. If she isn't VP, then i'd love to see her on the SCOTUS

Oktoberain and i were talking about that a while ago, in fact.

And if we're lucky, maybe Scalia or Thomas will have a myocardial infarction or something, and have to retire.

[Marrah_G]

11. I could be happy with that.

As for Kaine, there are better choices out there.

[Bluebear]

14. You have no right to your wants or beliefs anymore.

Don't you get it?

[LostinVA]

17. I'm also stupid and need a GPS

[SwampG8r]

65. i would take the gps

those things are expensive

[pecwae]

98. Take the GPS that's offered.

Somene has to be very stupid to offer to buy one for you.

All the thinly veiled and outright troll accusations of long time DUers is getting very tiresome around here. Why aren't they being deleted?

[depakid]

18. I want her to replace Harry the weasel Reid

There are plenty of others who'd do just fine or better on the USSC than Hillary, but too few who'd stand up and take it to the far right in the Senate.

[burythehatchet]

23. Leadership entails taking risks. She is not a risk taker. She is a beaurocrat.

[depakid]

28. Well, she's more of a risk taker than Harry Reid

then again, pretty much anyone outside the gang of 14 would be an improvement.

[burythehatchet]

32. Russ Feingold....any day.

[depakid]

34. Not if McCain's elected

Feingold rubber stamps EVERY nominee, because he thinks that advice and consent is overruled by executive choice.

[LostinVA]

24. I'm also on board with that

I've seen her in the hearings -- she blasts 'em.

[karynnj]

60. HRC was a leader of the right half of the party in the years in the Senate

She was a leader in the Kerry/Feingold is cut and run and was annoyed Kerry and Kennedy filibustered Alito. When has HRC EVER led any liberal cause in the Senate. She was not one of the people who joined to cosponsor Feingold's censure bill. She didn't write legislation on oversight of secret prisions? She didn't lead the fight agsinst FISA, though she voted against it. Where is this HRC will fight hard coming from - the only people I've seen her attack were Obama and Edwards in the primaries and Kerry since November 2004. (Yes, I remember her brave call for Rumsfeld to be fired - about 3 years after Kerry and Dean - and her demmand for an exit plan from Iraq, something that Biden, Kerry, Dodd, Boxer, Feingold etc had discussed in many hearings that Biden called when the Senaet changed in 2007.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. Exactly right. n/t

[GCP]

19. She would be an excellent Supreme Court Justice

[burythehatchet]

22. How so?

[GCP]

25. She's got strong left wing views and would fight like hell

Against Scalia and Thomas.

[burythehatchet]

31. One of us has a completely ditorted interpretation of what a liberal is

could very well be me.

I am ...

anti war
pro labor
anti corporate power

these are my 3 most important issues.

[GCP]

35. So are you a Nader supporter?

He would seem to represent you more than any other candidate.

[burythehatchet]

39. I aree with his policies. I despise his politics. Nader is shameful. He sacrificed

an incredible level of good will at the altar of his ego. He was in a position to do great things and instead chose to do nothing positive. He lost his way. But as I said, I agree with his policies, as most liberals would, I imagine.

[Beacool]

47. Same thing I thought.........

:eyes:

[burythehatchet]

54. BS. You thought!!

:rofl:

[Beacool]

55. Well, your description sounded more like Nader than Obama.

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

38. That doesn't make a good SCJ.

A good SCJ is someone who is an expert in constitutional law, experienced as a judge, and committed NOT to advocating or "fighting" partisan views but in fair, responsible, expert interpretation of the US Constitution, regardless of what partisans on either side think about it.

[karynnj]

61. Fantastic description - and I'm sure among the county's judges someone

who is all that can be found.

HRC people have to get that she is not entitled to a consolation prize. Gore, who really won was offered nothing neitehr was Kerry.

[AZ Criminal JD]

20. She flunked the DC bar exam

It would be difficult to get any one confirmed to the Supreme Court when they have flunked the bar.

[GCP]

27. How the hell did Thomas do it

She's get double his IQ, at least.

[AZ Criminal JD]

71. The only reason you would single out Thomas is because of his race

That is extremely racist and offensive.

[GCP]

99. Bullshit

He's not qualified, period.

[Thothmes]

101. What are the Constitutional qualifications required

for a Supreme Court Justice?

[texastoast]

29. Hmm.

Could be. I just wonder if ever in the history of SCOTUS anyone who failed their bar (even once) was confirmed to the bench.

[SwampG8r]

67. being a lawyer is not a prerequisite to SCOTUS

it is not constitutionally specified that it be a lawyer at all

[depakid]

91. True, but no non-lawyer has ever sat on the USSC

although several have sat on state supreme courts.

[AZ Criminal JD]

68. In the early history there were some that didn't take the bar

But that was because the bar exam is a relatively recent invention (20th century).

[depakid]

92. Most people wouldn't consider that relevant

Although curiously, it popped up not too long ago in a high profile situation:

Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School and a former Harvard Law School professor, is considered such a legal superstar that news of her flunking the California bar last year made the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Sullivan remains a full law professor at Stanford and is associated with a private law firm.

Although Sullivan is licensed to practice law in New York and Massachusetts, the California Supreme Court last month removed her from litigation over a $500-million licensing dispute because she was not a member of the state bar.

The constitutional scholar, who has argued several times before the U.S. Supreme Court, wasn’t eager to talk about the setback, declining to say how much she studied for the bar or how close she came to passing. “That is all past,” Sullivan said.

She took a special bar exam for lawyers licensed elsewhere that is shorter than the regular test. Only 28% achieved passing scores.

This time, Sullivan is not taking any chances. She said she has immersed herself in study for the test today.

“I am eating, drinking and sleeping the bar,” said the scholar, who is frequently cited as a potential U.S. Supreme Court nominee.

Sullivan’s failure, while a surprise to the legal community, attests to the exam’s challenge. California’s bar “is one of the most difficult,” said Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/21/local/me-bar21

[texastoast]

26. I want her to be Senator

We need all we can get.

Plenty of other qualified folks. We need a substantial majority in both houses.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

37. What makes her qualified to be SCJ?

Is she a constitutional law scholar?

I've wondered this ever since I first hear people suggesting it?

Wouldn't it seem to be reasonable to want a SCJ to have actually be a judge at some point? And have background and practice in constitutional law?

I would like to see Hillary Clinton as Senate Majority Leader or Secretary of State

[TexasObserver]

41. No. First, she'd never get approved by the senate.

Second, she's not qualified to be on the court.

Third, who knows how she would rule on important issues? She's far too political, and far too cozy with some really nasty special interests.

Fourth, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell Obama would nominate her to the court. He's a constitutional scholar and he knows she isn't. Her knowledge of law is tangential, at best.

Ultimately, she fails for the same reason Harriet Miers did. She won't be perceived as up to the job. There are dozens of better candidates for the Supreme Court.

Hillary would be find as a Cabinet member, someone who can be fired if they get off their leash.

[LostinVA]

44. Oh my

:eyes:

Keep teh unqualified woman on her leash.

[Political Heretic]

48. Lost what about my other post - why not sec. of state?

Seems to fit her resume more... ? I'd be totally behind that one! :)

Between Biden or Clinton we'd be in great hands!

(Though I would humbly request that she never use the word "obliterate" in a political sentence ever again for the rest of her life!)

[TexasObserver]

66. Wow, that sure reveals a lot about YOU.

Do you always let your sexism play a role in the way you process information?

In the world of politics, there's nothing gender specific about keeping big mouthed politicians like Hillary on a leash, if you want to try to use them to further an agenda.

Does "she's totally untrustworthy and a loose cannon" soothe your offended eyes? If so, substitute this phrase for the one that offended you:

Hillary would be fine as a Cabinet member, someone who can be fired if they become totally untrustworthy and a loose cannon.

Stop inferring in everything you see or hear that you don't like some aspect of sexism. It reveals YOUR sexism.

[Beacool]

49. Wow and wow!!!!!!!

That last sentence says it all...........

:wow:

[cboy4]

52. Off their leash?

:wow:

[TexasObserver]

64. Yes. It's a colloquialism. In politics, it means someone who can't be trusted ...

... someone who can't be trusted NOT to undermine the president or party who need to be able to trust that person.

Would "loose cannon" work better for you?

[cboy4]

78. Uh, just because it may be a colloquialism doesn't mean

you should throw it around while referring to a woman.

Do you honestly not see why females, who've had to fight for everything from the right to vote to equal pay ... deal with "should be home barefoot and pregnant," might have just a little bit of a problem with such a comment about being on a leash?

That's hard to believe.

"Loose cannon" would have been better (in quotation marks), since it's gender neutral ... however no, I would not say it works better for me considering I hardly think Senator Clinton is a loose cannon.

[TexasObserver]

80. Uh, you see what you want to see, the facts be damned.

Hillary has proved herself to be dishonest and untrustworthy. Like bad politicians who can't be trusted, she has to be kept on a leash, she has to be contained, she has to be kept on the reservation, she has to be kept from fucking things up.

If you don't like my language, put me on Ignore. I'm not writing to meet your approval, or to placate your need for attention, or to address your need to whine about those who see Hillary for the shallow, unprincipled person she is.

[cboy4]

81. Gotcha, you don't understand.

You just go ahead and let your blind hatred of Hillary mask your embarrassing inability to understand the offensive nature of your leash comment.

[TexasObserver]

83. Gotcha. You make stuff up.

Run along. I've got adults to talk to.

[cboy4]

85. Oh I know. You're one of the more notorious foot-stompers at

DU.

When people like myself pin you into a corner, you urge puting yourself on ignore, or you see no reason to discuss things further. LOL

Look at the disrespectful way you've flown off the handle interacting with everyone in this thread you disagree with.

Embarrassing to say the leash.

[TexasObserver]

87. Your comments are laughable.

I thought maybe after the primary you'd get your head on straight, but I see that hasn't happened.

Haven't you noticed that you don't talk about the topic, you talk about the posters in the thread whose opinions you don't like? I posted about the topic. You post about me. Don't kid yourself. You're the poster who is disrespectful, and you do it constantly. You find a poster who posts something you don't like about the topic, then you make your topic of the discussion the poster you don't agree with.

[MonkeyFunk]

82. God, that's ignorant

but I'm not surprised.

[TexasObserver]

84. God, that's ignorant

Do you ever do anything here except piss and moan to posters who disagree with you?

Are you capable of reading a post you don't like without posting some pathetic, childish response?

[Occam Bandage]

110. Results 1 - 10 of about 123,000 for bill clinton leash. (0.25 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?q=bill+clinton+leash

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,380,000 for politics leash. (0.19 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=vOE&q=politics+leash&btnG=Search

So, you were saying?

[TexasObserver]

114. Yes, and if you look back, Hillary was not the object of my statement. "Cabinet officer" was.

My point was that the president appoints and can fire his cabinet, so if Obama is going to use Hillary - given their history - he's going to want to be able to make sure she lacks independence. He's going to want to make sure she holds her position as long as she is serving his needs. That's what any president has to have from his cabinet. He cannot have any cabinet officer undercutting him.

Given their history, the last place he wants Hillary is on the Supreme Court, where her power could trump his. Health, Labor - both Cabinet offices she might hold.

In my view, this entire side discussion is a contrivance, an excuse by the detractors to act offended, to use Rovian like tactics by attempting to make some sort of gender issue from this, as if the term "keep them on a short leash" had ever been used as a gender specific comment. People who want complain will find a reason.

[cboy4]

115. I was saying using the term keeping someone on their

leash, when referring to a woman, is sexist at the most and ignorant at the least.

How can you, a progressive I'm assuming, not have a problem with this?

Perhaps you can't get over your intense hatred of Hillary or something??

[Occam Bandage]

117. So, it is sexist when used in reference to a woman, despite it being

not sexist when used in reference to a man, and despite it being frequently and primarily used in reference to men? Are you absolutely certain you aren't barking at shadows?

[cboy4]

119. Yea, men have been soooo oppressed over the past 100-plus

years, ha Occam Bandage?

How are you incapable of understanding the difference between using the term while referencing a man versus a woman?

I don't care if it's used to describe me.

But it's clear women have a problem with it. And I don't blame them.

Forget your hatred of Hillary for a second, and try to empathize about other women ... particularly those who have been treated as second class citizens in the work place, etc.

[Occam Bandage]

121. I'm not talking about the existence of sexism. I am asking how a term

with no gender connotations, that has nothing to do with gender, that is used without respect to gender, that is used frequently, and that is used more often on men than on women might possibly be considered sexist.

"It's clear women have a problem with it?" No women I know. A Google search finds only one feminist blogger who has a problem with it (and, to be fair, a handful of posts linking to it)--in a list of sexist comments people on the internet have made about Hillary, including such other awful sexist phrases as "entitled," "resentful" and "not tough enough."

http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=3577

If the best argument you can make for banning a phrase from the English language is that someone somewhere might take inappropriate offense at it...

[cboy4]

123. I'm not advocating banning it from the English language.

I'm however arguing that it should not be part of the vocabulary of progressives.

And maybe you don't know any women who have a problem with it (I'm sure you've asked around :eyes:), but obviously there are some DUers who have a problem with it. They've posted so.

Stop being so stubborn OB. I know you're not an idiot.

[Occam Bandage]

126. And you're arguing it on basis of phantoms of unfounded offense.

It's no more valid than if I were to claim that Irishmen were offended by beards.

[liberalpragmatist]

63. Why wouldn't she be "qualified"?

You realize that MANY eminent supreme court justices have never before served on the federal bench -- Earl Warren, when he became Chief Justice, had never served in the judiciary -- he was the governor of California. Several others -- including Hugo Black and Charles Evans Hughes came from the political realm. And most judicial historians and constitutional lawyers believe that politicians have often made some of the best justices.

As for never getting approved? Why the hell wouldn't she? The Senate tends to be VERY deferential to presidential supreme court nominees. They're especially deferential to former colleagues. And Democrats will likely control the Senate by anywhere between 55 and 60 members come next spring.

IMO, she'd be an excellent Supreme Court justice. As would Obama, in fact. He's got a different role right now, however. :)

[TexasObserver]

70. She lacks the education, intelligence, personality, and dedication to principle.

Of course there have been good Supreme Court justices who were politicians, but Hillary Clinton is not one of them. She's never really practiced law, except for the time she was an errand girl for Walmart and other corporate interests. She's dishonest. She lacks good core values.

I can't imagine anyone who is an attorney and appreciates the work the court must do wanting Hillary on it. I know I don't trust her there, and don't consider her qualified to be on it. I can think of dozens of Democrats who would be better.

Why would Obama want to appoint her? That makes no sense at all. She's dangerous to him, and if he's going to use her, it needs to be in a position he can fire her if she screws up or cops an attitude.

[liberalpragmatist]

74. Hillary "never really practiced law" ?!!

She graduated near the top of her class from Yale Law School! She was one of the first women to serve as an editor with the Yale Law Review. She's written extensively about legal issues surrounding women's rights and children's rights and practiced law for over two decades. Plus, she taught at the University of Arkansas Law School for years. And was named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America in 1990.

You can disagree with her legal or political views. But there's absolutely no basis to claim she isn't "intelligent" or qualified as a lawyer or legal thinker.

And this is coming from an ardent Obama supporter.

[TexasObserver]

77. That's right. She's a poseur.

Her resume might impress you, but it's not impressive for anyone to be considered for appointment to the court. She's completely lacking in a judicial temperment, and never been in a court room in her life.

She's a resume stuffer. She's got a Harriet Miers resume.

Arkansas Law School lecturer? That's not the kind of background you want in a Supreme Court Justice.

I don't see any point in arguing further. If you want to think she's qualified, that's your opinion. It's not going to be shared by legal scholars, but it's yours.

[silverlil]

90. Senator Clinton

I think she would make a great supreme court judge. I did not vote for her in the primary because I voted for Obama, but I think she would be great for this high honor, and I think this is her calling quite frankly.

[terrya]

97. I disagree with you about not getting appointed by the Senate.

I think, precisely because she IS one of them, that there would be some "senatorial courtesy" in regard to her nomination.

I think she's as qualified as anyone. You don't have to be a judge to serve on the Supreme Court. Earl Warren, one of our greatest Chief Justices, wasn't a judge when President Eisenhower nominated him.

[Thothmes]

103. No but did serve as the District Attorney for

Alameda County, CA and was the Attorney General of the State of California. Reasonable judicial qualifications IMO.

[SeaLyons]

113. Hey Texas....I think if you go back and read the DU

rules for the "Presidential", you'll see that you are to keep your negative mouth shut about Hillary. I think stating that she belongs on a "Leash" or is not qualified for the supreme court, etc., is just a bit out of line.

[Beacool]

43. I prefer her as president.

Maybe not this year, but some time in the future.

:shrug:

[Labors of Hercules]

46. Hillary for Supreme Court Justice!!

All other national offices are hereby disbanded. :evilgrin:

[katandmoon]

53. Don't think Obama would ever nominate such a liberal as Hillary

She wouldn't be bipartisan enough for him.

[onetinsoldier]

58. hillary and bill are in a funk

i think most people on this post do not realize how damaged and depressed hillary and bill are right now,i am in their generation and think i have a little insight here.i would bet a million dollars right now that the last thing on hillary's mind is any position except one that would best position her to run again for president,she and bill are consolation prize type people,they are power hungry egomaniacs ,which is not all bad,and want it all are nothing,right now they are both hurting from a tremendous defeat,even more than THEY realize

[CreekDog]

56. That sounds good

be nice to see her kick their asses (those that need it). :applause:

[Maddy McCall]

57. I can agree with this.

[grantcart]

73. lol what a shocker lol

not intending to be mean or anything but the way that you phrase it makes it sounds like your trying to make sound like it was a tough difficult decision for you.

[karynnj]

59. I don't think she's a likely candidate

as she was never a judge, thus has no judicial record. I realize that is not a requirement, but the fact is there is little that has been shown of what her judicial tempermant would be. Even compared to other Senators, her speeches on things with constitutional aspects does not seem anywhere near people like Leahy, Feingold, Levin, Kerry or Dodd. (Go into to the Seante record and read their speeches on things like FISA, the torture bill, Alito (her speech mostly dealt with choice - which was not the key issue and ANYONE Bush picked would be pro-life.

The other thing is that there were at best ethical corners cut by the Clintons. I really think that she would not be a good choice. (note - I really doubt any Senator would be that good a choice - you want someone who has proven their judicial ability - it is a lifetime appointment.

[tammywammy]

62. Um, I pass on the idea of her as a SC Justice

[jillan]

69. Agreed! That would be perfect for her. And us!

[grantcart]

75. I find the pairing of these two completely unrelated issues very revealing

(to use a phrase from the thread)


It shows that your opinion about Kaine is formed from the emotional feelings you have about Hillary.


You have labelled him a bigot because of your disappointment of Hillary.


If Obama appoints Hillary for VP I support it
If he appoints Hillary for Supreme Court I support it
If he supports Kaine for Vice President I would support it.

Not that my support really means anything

[onenote]

79. I think her decision making on the SCOTUS would be fine. I can't imagine she wants the job

She's a political animal, and I say that as a compliment not a criticism. Not sure that she'd enjoy being a SCOTUS justice as much as being in the rough and tumble of the political world, meeting with people, helping constituents etc.

[Radical Activist]

86. We already have too many corporate attorneys on the bench.

[TheKentuckian]

89. This isn't meant as a bash at all

but wouldn't it be honest to say that there is probably both better talent for the bench and better uses of Clinton's talents. Admittedly, when I was more livid with her I irresponsibly wanted her on the bench to get her out of the party's functioning circle and there is still a part of me that feels she is dangerous to the functioning health of the party.

She's in her 50's and still doesn't know that refuse to lose and do anything to win are not the same thing. That worries the hell out of me but I wouldn't want someone with subjective morality to be a Supreme Court Justice. Maybe, if the balance was more reasonable it would be different.
You could risk a stray vote to conglomerate and have a chance for it to be balanced out, as is Clinton would in some cases swing the court drastically to the right and the people cannot afford more exposure to getting stomped by big money and/or a secretive government than we must already suffer with for the better part of a generation as it is because we've splintered off and voted for Regan, maybe a Bush, Nader, or even sat out.

I think some serious thought and conversation should take place about her being Majority Leader (because we could use a tougher one), IF she can work with others and be strong with out being a bully because the position requires negotiation skills and willingness to compromise and build consensus. She has the ability but I don't know if the spirit is willing.

[LostinVA]

94. I seriously almost just fainted

A disagreement that is rational and free of any personal snark directed at me -- is this GDP???

Seriously -- although I don't agree with everything you wrote, I do agree and appreciate how you wrote it. Thanks!

[MrSlayer]

88. I don't want her as either.

I want her to remain the junior Senator of New York until 2012.

[my3boyz]

100. She is not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Also

I seriously doubt she would get the votes she needed to get the position. In addition to that the she seems more suited for the senate.

[LVjinx]

106. What are the qualifications?

[sourmilk]

102. I'd rather see her in Health and Social Services...

I never liked her much, but she DID have some ideas I thought superior to Obama's.

[Thothmes]

104. I would hope that President Obama would

appoint an individual to the Court that has his experience as a Constitional scholar.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

107. Yikes.

When did she ever show good judgement?

No thanks.

[Occam Bandage]

108. What? She isn't a Constitutional scholar; she's never argued a case

regarding the Constitution (or anything else); she's never been a Federal judge (or had any real-life experience with jurisprudence). Hell, she failed the D.C. bar exam and never retook it. Why would you want to appoint someone who has absolutely no-zero-zip-zilch experience with Constitutional issues to be one of the nine stewards of the Constitution?

I like Hillary, but Hillary is about as qualified to be a Supreme Court justice as Harriet Miers is.

[mod mom]

112. We don't need another corporatist on the SCOTUS.

[Kber]

116. Interesting idea

Wouldn't you want someone familiar with the court system, or is that not really necessary.

History, anyone?

[bigwillq]

118. Not sure where I "want" Hillary

I think Hillary could be a valuable asset to the Obama administration, as could Biden, Dodd, and many other talented DEMS.

But I also don't want any of these people to leave their current capacity. I am sure a few may accept jobs in the administration but I hope it's not loaded with current power players from the House and Senate or Governors.

[Danger Mouse]

122. I think that'd be a good position for her, and for the country.

[Medusa]

124. Didn't she flunk her DC bar?

:evilgrin:

[LowerManhattanite]

125. Thank you mods for that bit of thread clean-up. :) n/t