« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Forget the "Unity Ticket," put Clinton on the Court
Obama should resist the pressure to give Clinton the VP spot. Instead, he should offer her the first spot that opens on the Supreme Court. She would get a (life time!) position that is just as powerful--arguably more so--as that of vice-president. She would be given a position of authority and autonomy, and Obama would not have to worry that she was undermining his policies.
Such an appointment would not be unprecedented: nothing in the Constitution says that justices have to be judges first. Earl Warren, a former attorney general and governor of California, was tapped for the Court despite never being a judge.
Warren also narrowly lost the vice-presidency in 1948 when he ran with Thomas Dewey. Even if Warren had become vice-president in the 1948 election, few people today would remember his name. (Do you know who Harry Truman's vice president in 1948 was? I don't.) Instead, Warren joined the Court and helped change American history.
I think Earl Warren without question would have preferred his position on the Supreme Court (admittedly as chief justice) over the position of vice-president. Clinton should too.
Comments (18)
Can you put someone who failed the bar exam on the Supreme Court?
May 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pass.
May 15, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking Ambassador to Bosnia.
May 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
May 15, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would a democratic president put a conservative judge on the court?
I second the Bosnian ambassador idea however.
May 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
She passed the Arkansas bar, just not the Washington, D.C. bar.
She might be about as qualified for this job as Alberto Gonzales was for his last important job.
May 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't even have to be a lawyer to be put onto the Supreme Court. Heck, in most (if not all) jurisdictions, you don't have to be a lawyer to become any kind of judge.
May 15, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
In DeSoto County MS (MS 1st congresionaldistrict) when I was in high school they had a vet that was the medical examiner for the county. You have to love having every position be elected with no qualification requirements.
May 15, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would certainly put a permanent under the Republican saddle if Hillary was on the Supreme Court.
And it promises more long-term job security than the White House...
May 15, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
left our "burr"...
under the saddle...
May 15, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'd rather see Bill get appointed to SCOTUS because though some might not like "triangulization", it is sort of similar to what King Soloman did with the baby.
The potential cost to Hillary for taking this bargain would be that an appointment is not guaranteed, she'd still have to pass through the Senate. And, what's really interesting was that back when the two Hillary bios were being promoted, I remeber that one of the authors (I'm pretty sure it was Bernstein) told Charlie Rose that if Hillary were successful, she was planning to ask Obama to join the court.
May 15, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but after skimming through most of the Carl Berstein interview and becoming recaptured from time to time, I remembered that it was Jeffrey Toobin who had said it, when he was promoting his book about the court. (Start at 12:45 and go for a couple of minutes)
May 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How bout Governor of West VA?
I only Kid...:)
May 15, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
COuld you really nominate Bill to the Supreme Court? Wasn't he disbarred?
That might be a tough sell.
May 15, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would depend on how many Dems we had in the Senate. I'm pretty sure we'd need at least 60. Although I'm not sure of their actual qualifications, either Bill or Hillary would be great if only for the reactions it would get from Limbaugh, Coulter, et al.
May 15, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to be a lawyer or a member of the bar to serve on the Supreme Court. They'd just have to pass through the Senate and because Bill Clinton was popularly elected twice, it may be politically difficult for the Republicans to deny him appointment and if nothing else, they might be steered by a reluctance to set a precedent.
May 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when have legal prowess and keen intellect had anything to do with being appointed to the SCOTUS? :)
And body that employs intellectual lightweights like Scalia and Thomas can hardly claim to be discriminating!
May 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is an interesting idea; however I am not sure she would pass senate confirmation and I think Obama would burn too much political capital to put her on the bench.
One key issue that will come up is her failure of the DC Bar. She later passed the Arkansas Bar, yet people will make an issue out of the DC bar.
Then they would go through her legal career and her political career with a fine tooth comb.
After that, the issue of her husband's salaries from speaking engagements would become an issue.
All in all, she may be an even more controversial Supreme Court Nominee than a Presidential Nominee.
May 15, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment