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.
Or to put it another way - someone please check my math on this - if a vote was conducted today, Hillary would need only two Republican votes for confirmation.
That is EXACTALY what I was thinking when I read the title.
A Hillary nomination would be filibustered, and 40 GOP Senators would support the filibuster.
Guaranteed.
And guess what? The only reason that such a filibuster would succeed is because the scumbag Democrats themselves have set the stage for it with their recent unprecedented and shameless filibusters of Estrada, Pickering, and Brown - - all supported, by the way, by Bride of Scumbag herself! Talk about biting yourself in the rear-end!
Seriously though, you do make the good point!
It's a electoral question for the Senators.
It can be fairly phrased this way:
Are there two Republican Senators who would lose their seats if they didn't vote for her?
Looking especially at the Northeast- maybe so don't you think?
And then there's McCain... who knows what he'd do.
True, and that is a chilling thought. But again, it would presumably never get that far because it only takes 41 Senators to sustain a filibuster. And Republican Senators who failed to support such a filibuster of Hillary, let alone actually vote to confirm her, would be risking their seats.
By the way, Who Are the Brain Police?
You know, that fillibustering of judicial nominees isn't constitutional. The media might point that out if we tried it against a Dem nominee like Hillary!.
I firmly think the media would drive a Hillary nomintion all the way to a vote. Perhaps then there would not be two Republicans to let us down. But I don't feel very sure.
Anyway, I've found a tag line to use for a while!
Zappa lyrics by album (sing along in your mind).
Name a justice who wasn't.
true enough, it is just good to know BECAUSE a disbarred person is "not a laywer".
It is just a piece of trivia. Stanger things have happened.
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.