Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States - Hillary Clinton?
vanity post | February 2, 2004 | HAL9000

Posted on 02/02/2004 1:46:35 PM PST by HAL9000

A recent post on FreeRepublic suggested the novel theory that Conservatives would be better off if George W. Bush lost the election and a Democrat became president.

One response objected to that theory, claiming that if the Democrats win, the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would be Bill Clinton.

On the surface, that sounds like a real problem. Chief Justice Rehnquist turns 80 this year, and it's likely that the winner of the 2004 presidential election will nominate his replacement.

But there is a problem with the Chief Justice Bill Clinton theory: Clinton's law license in Arkansas is suspended until 2006, and shortly after his suspension, he resigned his bar admission to the U.S. Supreme Court. He can't apply for readmission to the SCOTUS bar until at least 2009.

Clinton would not want the nomination because it would damage his legacy by resurrecting the scandals that led to his suspended law license, and the suspension would be an insurmountable problem in confirmation hearings. He's not going to sit through hearings and be grilled under oath about that. It's more likely he would take a position at the United Nations. Therefore, I'm confident that the Democrats will never nominate Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court.

But, there is a real danger that a Democratic president would nominate Hillary Clinton as Chief Justice. She would be the #1 top candidate for the post among the party rank and file. There will be a huge outcry for her nomination among Democrats - and unlike her husband, there is no record of her ever being impeached or disciplined for misconduct as an attorney.

The poster of the article linked above assures us that possiblity is "even less likely to happen than Slick Willie getting a seat on the big bench. ... Hillary Clinton will neither be nominated to the Supreme Court nor confirmed. It is not even an issue." He believes that an impeached, virtually disbarred ex-President has a better chance for SCOTUS nomination and Senate approval than his liberal icon Senator/wife. (What is he smoking?)

Another poster said that Hillary could not get nominated because she has never served as a judge before. But history proves that argument wrong. 43 of the 108 Supreme Court justices, including eight of the 18 chief justices, had no prior judicial experience. William Rehnquist had never served as a judge before his Supreme Court appointment in 1972.

Other posters opined that Hillary would rather be President than Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I doubt it. There is a key difference between the Clintons: Bill loves campaigning, Hillary loves governing. If she became Chief Justice, she could dispense with the aspects of politics she doesn't enjoy. No more campaigning, no more fundraising, no more debates - just sitting and interpreting our laws and Constitution as she sees fit - for life! She would have more power for a longer period of time as Chief Justice instead of President.

Furthermore, if a Democrat wins the presidential election in 2004, it would disrupt her commonly accepted timetable of running for president in 2008. That would make the Supreme Court an even more attractive option to her. Her odds of winning Senate confirmation to SCOTUS in the near future are better than winning a presidential election in 2012 (or 2008).

If a Democrat wins, I predict that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be nominated to be next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it will be nearly impossible to stop her confirmation in the Senate - even if Republicans control the chamber.

A Google search shows that there has been virtually no discussion of the dangers of a Chief Justice Hillary Clinton. This thread is intended to raise awareness of the issue - and to urge Conservatives to reject foolish theories that we would be better off with a Democratic president.



TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2004; chiefjustice; chiefjusticeclinton; chiefjusticehillary; clinton; hillary; hillaryclinton; next; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
Don't let Hillary trade her crusty old black pantsuit for a black robe. The damage to our nation would be incalculable. Support the reelection of President Bush.
1 posted on 02/02/2004 1:46:36 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.
2 posted on 02/02/2004 1:49:14 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
unlikely. More likely she'll be Kerry's VP till he has an "accident."
3 posted on 02/02/2004 1:51:11 PM PST by KantianBurke (Principles, not blind loyalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCKKKK


http://www.georgewbush.com


Per a letter I got this weekend, the mailing address for donations is:

BUSH-CHENEY '04, INC.
P.O. BOX 2005
MERRIFIELD VA 22116-9507


At the bottom of the letter is:
PO BOX 10729
Arlington, VA 22210
800.531.6789

Do it. Walk the precincts. Do something, anything. Let's lose these EVIL PEOPLE!!!
4 posted on 02/02/2004 1:53:17 PM PST by Bradís Gramma (BG (Logan's Personal Mafia Hit Squad))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

Yes, and I think it is a mistake not to always have a couple of non-lawyers there, just to inject a little reality.

So9

5 posted on 02/02/2004 1:56:22 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

Exactly! The most important words in the Constitution are, "We, the People.. You shouldn't have to be a specialist in law to understand the People's contract with ourselves.

If I could make any changes I wanted in the Constitution, I'd require that the Chief Justice be a lawyer who had practiced law as both attorney and judge, but I'd also make it so that not more than one more Justice could even have a law degree. Their decisions should be based on what "We, the People.." would decide, not a specialized and non-representative, self-styled 'elite.'

Of course, that's not the first thing I'd change. (*smile*)
6 posted on 02/02/2004 2:00:32 PM PST by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Where in the Constitution does it say that a justice has to even be a lawyer or a member of the bar?

A disbarred attorney may not practice before the Supreme court, but where in the constitution does it say they can't be a Justice or Chief Justice.

7 posted on 02/02/2004 2:01:49 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
HAL9000 Let me give you a little kindly advise.

Check your facts before starting your Keyboard!


8 posted on 02/02/2004 2:05:46 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Hitlery has higher ambitions. After being the prez (or the power behind the prez), she would settle for something less than the White House is ludicrous. This woman is starved for power. Look how she manuevered herself for the New York senatorial seat, and acquiesced to all those special interest groups that carried blocs of voters. Look at how she positioned herself as the leader of the demonRAT party, and further the U.S. Senate, even though she was the junior senator from New York. Look how she manuevered Bubba all those years to make him the president of the great nation in the free world. No, nothing less than the presidency is going to satisfy this woman, except the head of the EU provided the USA were a member.
9 posted on 02/02/2004 2:09:40 PM PST by lilylangtree (Olde English takes a long time to say, and we never say anything unless it takes a long time to say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Willie don need no steenkin license to be on the Supreme Court. And, even if he did, he's got the bucks hidden away in Switzerland to buy a license from a variety of states. Who's the guy in Jersey, McGreevey? Make him an offer, you can get one, too. Same thing with the local bar association or whoever.

But, why would Willie want to be on the court? Graft would be minimal. Always under public scrutiny, etc. His only question is, "What's in it for Willie?" Hillie would be much better on the court. Willie could work behind the scenes, make BIG bucks, and between them, they could destroy the country.

10 posted on 02/02/2004 2:11:13 PM PST by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Where in the Constitution does it say that a justice has to even be a lawyer or a member of the bar?

It doesn't say that, but so what? The practical reality is that the nominee will be a lawyer who has not been suspended from the bar.

If John Kerry wins the presidential electioin, Hillary Clinton will be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - not Bill Clinton.

11 posted on 02/02/2004 2:11:16 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
If the pubbies choose to play hardball, the Supreme Court might just die off - no one will be able to bring a confirmation vote to the floor of the Senate.
Another consitutional crisis brought to you by the Democrat Party.
12 posted on 02/02/2004 2:11:25 PM PST by Ben Hecks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Hecks
If only the pubbies would play hardball.
13 posted on 02/02/2004 2:24:24 PM PST by HoundsTooth_BP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
actually I was refering to the fact that Bill Clinton could become a SC Justice.

Additionally, a constitution is superior to a contract. There is a difference. We the People did not for a contract, we the people establish a constitution. It memorialized the institution of our society.

I do not believe being a "judge" matters as much as having worked in the real world. I would not put a lawyer requirement or limitation. I have seen the stupidity espoused by do-it-yourselfers in courtrooms. (Believe me when I say, repeating "I don't understand" based on some wacko pamphlet's instructions will not succeed.)

A law degree, and passing the Bar does not may you a lawyer. Practicing law makes you a lawyer. Idealistic but true. Book knowledge vs real life.

Hilary Clinton practiced the law of political connections. That is the worst kind of law. (almost french in nature) It means the law is re-envisioned based on your need de jour. Need to silence enemies? Free speech does not include unpopular speech because it provokes people. Need to condem enemies? Free speed does include unpoplular speech because it provokes people.

For those type of people it is not about law or even good lawyering and giving a person their day in court. It is only about aquiring PERSONAL power and the future generations of children be damned. (BTW was hilary ever pregnant or is their daughter adopted?)
14 posted on 02/02/2004 2:32:59 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HoundsTooth_BP
Which is why we need to support little league hardball. This way little leaguers grow up to become big leaguers.
15 posted on 02/02/2004 2:34:21 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
The Supreme Court is not there to decide what "We, the People" want -- that is the function of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

The Supreme Court is there to interpret the law. Your proposal makes about as much sense as requiring that only one radiologist in a hospital can interpret x-rays -- the rest have to be lay people.

Perhaps you think members of the Federal Reserve Board don't need to be financial experts, either?

It's delusional to think that there aren't jobs out there that require specialized training.
16 posted on 02/02/2004 2:48:35 PM PST by You Dirty Rats (DUBYA 2004 - RATS NEVERMORE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Hillary Clinton is the original WMD, either as Co-President, Senator or future Justice of SCOTUS or President. Is there anybody or anything that can defuse her?
17 posted on 02/02/2004 2:54:53 PM PST by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Wasn't Greenspan a professional musician? Claranet player, I believe.

Speialized knowledge is correct. But there is a difference between have knowledge and training with having a license. An ordinary Senator without a law degree could have the requisit qualifications for knowledge of the law.

Even judges don't know everything. I have seen civil lawyers become judges and assigned to the criminal bench and do a fine job.
18 posted on 02/02/2004 2:55:07 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
One of Clinton's contingencies of surrender was that he could never practice in the Supreme Court.
19 posted on 02/02/2004 3:03:43 PM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; HAL9000
"Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court."

True enough, but that mistake (a common misconception, btw), only provides more support to the thesis.
20 posted on 02/02/2004 3:09:02 PM PST by proud American in Canada (Take back the First Amendment! Call today! U.S. Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson