Okay, please let me know if your reaction to this question was the same as mine.
A friend of a friend posted this as a poll on Facebook so I'm doing the same thing here with an additional response option.
Printable View
Okay, please let me know if your reaction to this question was the same as mine.
A friend of a friend posted this as a poll on Facebook so I'm doing the same thing here with an additional response option.
Yay! My response was on the poll: WTF?!
I have no idea how seriously to take this, because apparently it's an idea that's been bandied about by Orrin Hatch (and to that I say: :dubious:). My response is also: WTF
I went with No but WTF would have come to mind if I had not already heard this. I know that in the past it was often a position given for some merit not related to being a good lawyer, but I think we have higher standards these days.
I initially thought "WTF," but quickly recovered to "NO," because lots of stupid shit happens while sensible people are thinking "WTF."
I have no problem with Hillary Clinton taking elected office if she can manage to get herself elected. Hell, depending on the position and the opposition, I might even vote for her. But the idea of just making her one of the nine most powerful, untouchable people in the country for the next 25 years by decree is nuts.
Not just NO , but HELL no!
Ok, why should Hilary Clinton not be made a Supreme Court Judge. She has a lawyer background, she is a Democrat in favour of Democrat policies (abortion, medicare etc), as a political move, it makes perfect sense. She is taken out of Obama's way and she will be no threat to any future Democrat campaining for president
What are the points against?
I'm mostly shocked rather than actively against it, but one reason I can see someone who otherwise agreed with her might be uncomfortable with that appointment is that she's far more entrenched in politics than law.
She's quite good at politics, but she's so deeply wrapped up in them and has all of her positions as a politician out there, so it would be difficult for people to say, "She made this decision based on the law," versus, "She made this decision based on what she thinks is personally right." From what I've seen, most of the SCOTUS makes their decisions based on their personal political beliefs regardless of what else might be said, but in this case it would be difficult for people to pretend otherwise.
Never a judge.Quote:
Originally posted by CatInASuit
Little courtroom experience.
Too far to the left, and IMHO unable to distance herself from that. I don't think she would be impartial and rule by the law rather than by her "progressive" stance. She also has very little experience as a lawyer, and none as a judge.
The "left" part doesn't bother me; she's less far to the left than Scalia and Alito are to the right. In terms of her politics, she's close to what the SCOTUS needs. "The inability to distance herself from that" is the problem to me.Quote:
Originally posted by Papaw
This is a big one to me. There's nothing in her background or experience to suggest she's a good candidate for the most demanding, prestigious job in jurisprudence.Quote:
Originally posted by Papaw
Frankly I think it mostly boils down to residual anti-Hillary sentiment. She's been demonized a LOT over the years and the political message machine has a whole lot more effect on people's opinions than a lot of folks pretend.Quote:
Originally posted by CatInASuit
She's probably still not as far to the left as Stevens, so I think concerns about that are non-starters. It's hard to predict how much she'd be able to influence other justices on the Court, although I don't think there's anyone who could do what Stevens has done in terms of forging majority opinions on difficult topics.
IMNSHO the best possible reason to make Hillary Clinton a Supreme Court Justice is that it would give the Tea Baggers collective apoplexy, and kill all the rotten bastards off. While I don't really think she'd be a good Supreme Court Justice (someone else has mentioned a lack of experience on the bench, I'll add that there have been some shocking lacunae in law and logic that she's embraced as a Senator) it would be worth the cost to devastate the numbers of those fucking assholes who seem determined to reduce political discussion in this country to the "You Momma!" level.
More seriously, I think that making her a Supreme Court Justice would create a huge hole in President Obama's cabinet, with no obvious replacement for Secretary of State. Now, if President Obama has a slightly edgy nomineee that he wants for the position, there might be some strategic benefit to nominated Hillary Clinton to the position, let the whole rotten, exhausting, and frenetic circus play out in Congress with her nomination being barely blocked at the last minute. Then in the wake of that exhaustive battle, name who he had really wanted to the seat in the first place, with almost no opposition.
Yeah, but no one really expects Obama to want this to be a big fight, which is the real reason he probably won't name Clinton. All the safe money is on Elena Kagan, who has no trail of personal opinions on things like abortion following her around.Quote:
Originally posted by OtakuLoki
Some writer at Slate actually made the case that Obama might well not want to go with a real liberal judge, and let the court continue its rightward slide, in order to help galvanize liberals in 2012 -- stealing the GOP's court-bashing strategy, I guess. Clinton wouldn't play into that agenda well.
Okay, my reaction to this was WTF, and here's why.
I hadn't heard a thing about Clinton being appointed. Not even a whisper. I glanced at the short list of names earlier in the day, Clinton's name was never mentioned. Apparently the only person talking about Clinton was Orrin Hatch, who went so far as to imply that hey, we like her, you wouldn't have a big fight if you chose her!
The thing is she's not even being considered-and rightfully so, IMO. But the only people talking about it are coming from the Right. Why?
I pointed this out to the very conservative friend-of-a-friend who posted the poll. Saying that the President likes Clinton where she is now, her lack of experience makes her an unlikely candidate, and that by all reports she's not even being considered, so there's no reason for her to worry. Her response "Yeah, well, I still don't want her there!"
It was very, very WTF.
I don't think this is a good tactic. Any boost the Dems would see from this would last one-three election cycles. Supreme Court justices are there basically until they die-so the 2-6 year boost doesn't balance out the 30+ year effect of the next Justice.Quote:
Originally posted by Exy
I agree in principle, but it's also pretty much unimaginable that he'd be able to get someone up who's equivalent to Stevens. Elena Kagan, the best bet, is AFAIK reasonably liberal.Quote:
Originally posted by RabbitMage
We've had Supreme Court Justices that weren't previously judges before (Earl Warren was even Chief Justice), so I don't see why that should be a mark against her. Arguably one or two people who aren't of the judge mindset might actually make for a slightly more progressive court on the big issues.
That said, I don't see Clinton being a good choice for Obama to make. She's doing okay where she is for him, and it'd only be a mess to move her around.
Given that something like a week ago, he named Elena Kagan (who always was the number one bet), Hillary is probably not an issue anymore.
Ms. Kagan also has never been a judge, though. Like you say, I don't think that's a major disqualification.
So what do people think of Elena Kagan? There's little to indicate her beliefs, but most of what little we know suggests she's liberal, though probably to the right of Stevens. One thing that makes me feel a little more pro-Kagan than a lot of the rest of the Far Left is that from what I've read, as Harvard Law School Dean, she was particularly distinguished in her skill at bringing in conservative faculty and getting along with them, which makes me think she may actually have some of Stevens's famous ability to get along with both sides and sew together majority opinions among justices who are not on the same end of the ideological spectrum.
That is a good summary. I like that she has no judicial experience but a very strong background. We might be overdue for have a justice or two that are not from behind the bench.Quote:
Originally posted by Exy