Supreme Court Justice Bill Clinton?

[babylonsister]

Supreme Court Justice Bill Clinton?
Posted: 11:52 AM ET



WASHINGTON (CNN) — It is a title that would be sure to bring either fear or cheer to many Americans, depending on your political leanings: Supreme Court Justice Bill Clinton.

That provocative possibility has long been whispered in legal and political circles ever since Sen. Hillary Clinton became a viable candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Now a respected conservative law professor has openly predicted a future President Clinton would name her husband to the high court if a vacancy occurred.

Pepperdine Law School's Douglas Kmiec said, "The former president would be intrigued by court service and many would cheer him on."

Kmiec worked in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses as a top lawyer, but said he has no personal or political "disdain" for Bill Clinton.

CNN talked with several political and legal analysts of both ideological stripes, and while several laughed at the possibility, none would rule it out completely. And all those who spoke did so on background only.

There is precedent for such a nomination: William Howard Taft, who called his time as chief justice, from 1921 to 1930, the most rewarding of his career. He was president from 1909 to 1913.

As one Democratic political analyst said, "You may recall recent trial balloons that Mr. Clinton was perhaps interested in becoming U.N. secretary-general. If he is grasping for a similarly large stage to fill his ambitions and ego, what better place than the nation's highest court, where could serve for life if he wanted?"

more...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/03/supreme-court-justice-bill-clinton/#more-4146

[liberalnurse]

1. Shall we now blog that Michelle Obama

for Supreme Court Justice? Yea, that makes just as much sense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Actually it does make some sense

and there is historical precedent to this

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Actually, this is something I would support

for both Bill and Hillary. On the court, not having to give a rat's ass about getting elected, they can be true liberals, instead of playing to the Right for votes.

And, it would give Rush Limbaugh an aneurysm.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Isn't that nepotism?

:shrug:

[salin]

5. it certainly would be.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Well then as a liberal progressive who detests racism...

I'm going to have to object to this idea.

[liberalnurse]

9. Bobby Kennedy was US Attorney General

during the John Kennedy Administration..................and Congress needs to also approve or disapprove the nominations.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Sure.

And Rodrigo Borgia was a Cardinal during Callixtus III's papacy.

:shrug:

[question everything]

30. And this is why the anti-nepotism law was passed

even though we know that he was excellent at that post.

[IntravenousDemilo]

43. Yes, well, AG and Pres are both Executive. This would be two of the three branches.

And Justice Clinton would have to recuse himself 90 per cent of the time. And on that basis alone, he would be one of the most ineffectual Justices in history.

And President Clinton would not be re-elected to a second term.

[geardaddy]

32. Sorry, dupe. n/t

[TheDebbieDee]

4. Not that he deserved to be, but wasn't President Clinton

banned from trying a case before the US Supreme Court after he left office?

Would a nomination be possible for him if he was banned from arguing a case before the Supreme Court?

[MrCoffee]

22. anyone can be nominated...and if the Senate confirms, they're in

the president could nominate anyone they choose, the only requirement is the advice and consent of the Senate.

[Hangingon]

31. Wasn't he disbarred in Arkansas?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

40. He was disbarred twice; once by Arkansas, once directly by SCOTUS n/t

[Tyrone Slothrop]

6. Wasn't he disbarred by SCOTUS in 2001? n/t

[B Calm]

19. You don't even have to be a lawyer to be on the SC

[Tyrone Slothrop]

39. I know that.

Regardless, the fact that he's not legally allowed to argue a case before said court makes him unfit to sit on said bench, IMHO.

[B Calm]

8. I would support it, if only to piss off republicans!

[Demeter]

12. Why? So He Can Trade Dirty Jokes with Thomas?

I'd rather see Hillary there. She has the temperament.

[salin]

15. I agree she is suited

both in intellect, and in temperament.

She is not one of my top choices for president - but I would be behind her nomination to the Supreme Court in a heart beat.

[IntravenousDemilo]

44. Bravo! Maybe President Obama or President Edwards could nominate her.

And she'd certainly be around and influential long after those presidencies had ended.

[sentelle]

51. agreed

Before becoming first lady, she was a hell of a lawyer. Probably still is.
Whatever you say about her, you do need to give her credt for that, at least.

[SharonRB]

13. I'd love to see him on the SCOTUS, but

I don't think he could be appointed by Hillary because of nepotism rules. If someone else is president (and hopefully it will be someone else) he could be appointed.

[babylonsister]

14. I think it's a great idea but wonder if his past would get in the way.

If he was disbarred, is this even conceivable? Was he disbarred? I honestly don't know. I'm off to google.

[SharonRB]

20. I also thought about that.

I think he may have been, but I don't know if it was a permanent disbarment.

[babylonsister]

23. He was, suspended for 5 years:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/01/scotus.clinton/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10904831/

[SharonRB]

25. His suspension was over a while ago, but

I think he also lost rights to argue in front of the SCOTUS. He was appealing that, but I don't know what ever happened with that. If that went through it may have been permanent. How ironic would it be if he were forbidden to argue in front of the SC, but he then because a justice?

[AZ Criminal JD]

37. The law on nepotism which was passed in 1967

only applies to appointments within the Executive branch. It doesn't apply to appointments to the Judicial branch. That 1967 law is probably unconstitutional because it is a limitation on the Appointments clause of the Constitution but no president has challenged it. But it would not apply here anyway.

[SharonRB]

52. Thanks for the clarification

I wasn't sure whether or not it applied here.

[Kokonoe]

16. I would use bush logic and get an acceptable person that will live

another 50 years. Not someone with an old bypass operation.

[Demeter]

18. Good Point! Say, Patrick Fitzgerald?

[salin]

21. Robert Kennedy Jr?

[Kokonoe]

50. Women live longer than men on average.

[MADem]

17. I'd LOVE it!!! Hell, if Taft can do it, why not Bill?

If not that, well, I'd like to see him as UN ambassador, and then after the current SEC GENERAL leaves, have the UN toss out the rules and make HIM the SECGEN. That would piss the GOP off so much!

Either scenario is grand. Revenge IS a dish best served cold!

Even if Sen. Clinton doesn't achieve the Presidency, it would be most amusing to have her husband, AND her, on the Supremes bench--a firmly Democratic Senate could advise and consent on that, toute suite!

[IntravenousDemilo]

46. Well, was Mrs Taft running for the office of Chief Executive when her Bill was Chief Justice? n/m

[MADem]

47. Well, did you read my last sentence of my post? NT

[IntravenousDemilo]

49. Well, yes I did, and you're right, that would be very amusing indeed.

Two Clintons on the Supreme Court would be great, kind of like Adam's Rib, but not really. Can you imagine what it would be like at home if they were on opposite sides of a decision? Someone would be sleeping in the guest room pretty often.

You just can't have one Clinton in the Executive branch and the other in the Judicial branch, that's all. That would be like a Republican wet dream, except it would be Democratic -- but not democratic.

[fightindonkey]

24. This Is From That Tabloid Book About Hillary Four Years Ago. Total Nonsense

[babylonsister]

36. Did you even read the OP? It's from today; people are speculating. That's all. nt

[B Calm]

26. I think we should be doing what they did for Raygun. Re-name

airports, etc etc in Clinton's honor.

[question everything]

27. Do you really see Bill Clinton being one of 9

and an "associate" on top of that?

Why bother?

Plus he was disbarred in Arkansas.

[no_hypocrisy]

28. Clinton WAS a constitutional law professor at the University of Arkansas.

He has more right to sit on the bench than Clarence Thomas.

[applegrove]

29. Didn't he have to give up is licence to practice law because of the Lewinsky scandal?

I cannot remember.

[babylonsister]

34. Yes, for 5 years. Then he had to apply for reinstatement, but I don't

know if he did.

[B Calm]

35. He agreed to give up his Arkansas Law License for 5 years. He's now eligible

once again to practice law!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. The craving for power never dies in some people.

There are many more people much more qualified to be a justice than Bill.

[Strawman]

38. Ironically, he would be more of an independent justice than Chimpy's stooges

Although I'm sure the right would cry about this being an affront to the independence of the judicial branch. I have to say though, at face value, the idea of the President and a Supreme Court justice being married to one another does certainly seem to present a problem in terms of separation of powers. It seems like it would be a distraction to HRC to spend the energy needed to justify that kind of selection and ultimately not worth the trouble. I'm sure there are plenty of equally suitable candidates outside of her family.

[onenote]

41. and Douglas Kmiec insights on this are based on what?

Something he read in his bowl of alpha-bits one morning?

The guy is speculating about something he knows nothing about and people here are falling all over themselves to discuss it, even criticizing Bill's "craving for power". Jeez.

I'll spell it out for you. It. Will. Never. Happen.

It won't happen no matter what Democrat ends up in the WH because it would be politically stupid -- any Democrat will have enough of a problem getting their nominations through because the repubs probably will still have more than 40 seats in the Senate and no president is going to pick Clinton (nor do I have any reason to think he'd want the position) and add to the difficulty of getting that nomination through.

[onenote]

42. delete = dupe

[jakem]

45. yes. clearly he shows excellent ethical decision making...

:sarcasm:

besides, do we really want him there in his robe with no pants?

[IntravenousDemilo]

48. This would be the most stupid, ignorant, boneheaded, criminal, anti-democratic, Republicofascist

thing that anyone in the history of the United States of America could possibly conceive of doing. Even Spurious George wouldn't be that brazen, though I'm sure he's thought about such things as well... "Hmmm, Justice Laura, heh heh heh..."

Good thing this is just wildly hypothetical speculation, and that no one with a functioning brain would ever take the prospect seriously.

[CorpGovActivist]

53. Nominated by President John Edwards?

Sounds like a very worthwhile idea.

- Dave