« The Content of His Character | SpiderPig's Blog | What the $%^& is up with all the %$^&#@ profanity? »
Hillary for SoS or AG?
Pure conjecture on my part, but I think AG would be a better, more ironic, appointment so that she could go after some of the R's who witch-hunted her and Bill in the past. Thoughts?
Advertisement
How about, instead, we have someone who will enforce the law and uphold the Constitution, not use the office for partisan payback?
November 18, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary for anti-Condi, Bill Richardson for the anti-Gonzales, Obama for the anti-Bush. And for surprise walkon, Robert Gates as the anti-Robert Gates.
November 18, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um... Eric Holder was appointed AG.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/eric-holder-obamas-attorn_n_137696.html
He accepted the offer, too.
November 18, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about: Hillary for Senate?
During the Primary season people talked of Hillary for Sec of Health and Human Services -- but it was clear that this was too small a post for her.
She consistently maintained that healthcare was her prime issue. Neither Sec of State nor AG positions will help her push that issue.
Unless this is all an admission that healthcare is now off the table given the current economic situation.
November 18, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
November 18, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
How 'bout Hillary for the first available Supreme Court positions?
November 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't think I'd have an objection to that.
November 18, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would. She is not qualified.
Too many people in the blogsphere think that celebrity is a reason to get a job. There is still a time-honored way to vet most jobs: experience.
Hillary has never sat on the bench as a judge. It's been years since she practiced as an attorney. There are many more people qualified than her.
And while we are at it: she is also no Senate Majority Leader. But that isn't our choice -- it's the Dems in the Senate. But they won't give her that position.
If you are a Hillary fan, you should be pushing to keep her in the Senate where she can become a large presence and do so over a long period of time. I suspect this is the reason she may turn down a potential SoS offer: it prevents her from ever running for the presidency and also prevents her from having an independent political career. She must tow the Obama line or risk being let go after 4 years (and there are often cabinet shuffles even in a 2-term presidency anyway).
If she wants a long political career and the personalized attention for being a leader (which she clearly craves), her best bet is to stay in the legislative branch and not move to the executive.
November 18, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with you that Hillary fans should be pushing for her to stay in the Senate (as I do), I'd really ask you what your qualifications are to be a Supreme Court Justice.
It's not as if William Howard Taft had "practiced law" for a long time, or even very recently before he was appointed to the court by Harding.
Warren Burger (as one single example) had never sat as a judge. He simply practiced and taught law.
Many Supreme Court Justices have had extremely diverse backgrounds, some of which didn't even involve extensive careers in law, especially Constitutional Law.
CT, I think you need to calm down a little. I respect your opinion, but you seem to get really riled up when it comes to Hillary. ;)
Though as I said, I personally agree that she should stay in the Senate, and have been saying so since she lost the Democratic Nomination.
November 18, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taft served as the Solicitor General of the United States and was a federal appellate judge before becoming president. Taft also served as the first dean and a professor of constitutional law at the University of Cincinnati.
Earl Warren was DA for Alemeda County (who had no convictions ever turned on appeal) and AG for California. He also pre-brokered a deal with Eisenhower to stand down for a SC spot if Eisenhower won. So Earl Warren ended up standing down. Needless to say, we haven't seen that behavior from Hillary.
Hillary Clinton practiced corporate law via prestige and did little trial work.
I think the resume gap is clear enough. I made identical arguments during the primary because nothing has changed since then.
November 18, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand where you're coming from. What extensive resume in dealing with law and constitutional law did Charles Evans Hughes have? He was Governor of New York before being appointed to the Supreme Court. He practiced law for a time, but...
I'm not saying Clinton has any kind of extensive or overarching experience of qualifications to be a SC Justice. I just think that you're being a little hard on her in relation to what previously "qualified" someone for the position.
And yes, Earl Warren perhaps pre-brokered a deal, but under almost the same guidelines one could argue that in return for heavily campaigning for Obama, fundraising for him, and appointing him as Nominee by acclamation, etc., etc., that she deserves some kind of appointment (SC or Cabinet?). Let me be clear: I don't agree with this logic. I personally don't want Hillary in the Cabinet. And admittedly, this discussion has led me to question Hillary being appointed to the SC. But honestly, I wouldn't have a huge problem with it.
If you want to argue that things are more complicated now and that a more extensive resume and/or experience is needed in this day and age, then sure...
Again, to repeat: I'm not arguing with your assertion that Hillary should stay in the Senate. I think she should. But I fail to truly see how she's "unqualified" for a position on the Supreme Court.
November 18, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful. Warren didn't campaign in the primaries. That is "standing down". The equivalent situation for Hillary is to broker an agreement with Obama in (say) March about dropping out. Instead she pressed on very hard. By the time of the convention she had little leverage because it was clear she could lose as a good sport or as a bad one, but she was going to lose.
As far as Hughes is concerned, not only did he practice law but he was a law professor at Cornell and at the NY Law School! Again, Hillary can make no such equivalent claims of experience.
As I said originally, there are many more people with more experience as lawyers and judges than Hillary to sit on the bench. That's how she is not qualified. It would be the same argument as saying that Bill Clinton should sit on the SCOTUS.
Ask yourself: why aren't we having that argument? Answer: because he is not qualified either.
November 18, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, lest you misunderstand, Warren was able to pre-broker an agreement because he also had the chops to be on the SCOTUS per his resume as I recounted earlier.
November 18, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And apparently, there are those who don't believe she is qualified for SoS either:
November 18, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's simply how others are MORE qualified. It's not how she's NOT qualified. Simply because others are MORE qualified does not make her UNqualified. It just makes her LESS qualified.
And I'm not and have never said she's the most qualified candidate. Nor did I say I would LIKE to see her on the SC. I just wouldn't have a problem if she was appointed.
November 18, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The root of your argument for Hillary being qualified seems to be that other people with minimal qualifications were appointed in the past. Even if clearthinker's assertion that your examples actually were quite experienced was wrong, I would have difficulty with the premise.
If the purpose of the Supreme Court is to resolve constitutional issues, it seems that extensive experience in constitutional law would be a really nice qualification. Courtroom experience is also clearly a bonus. I don't see how past administration's decision to ignore these facts change them.
Using this logic, now that Brown has served as the head of FEMA, being a champion horse breeder qualifies a person for that position. I'd like to think we can leave history's worst decisions in the past.
But on a less philosophical point: I agree Hillary should stay in the senate. I can't imagine she'll pass up being her own politician to play second fiddle to Obama. I read somewhere Ted Kennedy is pushing for her to lead health care reform, so I'd bet she's leaning in that direction(fingers crossed).
November 18, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
There has never been a clear set of qualifications for being a Supreme Court Justice. My point is that each respective President has pretty much found their own qualifications for the position. Many of the past Supreme Court Justices have not had extensive knowledge of Constitutional Law.
Given the diversity of Justices in the past, and past courts, and the ways in which they operated, I find it difficult to simply disqualify Hillary because of those things.
Not to mention CT's own assertion above that Hillary is simply not qualified because there are others who are MORE qualified... That just doesn't make sense to me.
Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the Supreme Court knows that there is really no way of knowing how well an appointee will do once they're put on the bench. I find it thus more difficult to make the assumption that Hillary is "unqualified", as Justices in the past who have seemed to be qualified, or seemed to fit certain criteria, have gone a completely different route once appointed.
I in no way would push for Hillary to have a seat on the Supreme Court. But if she was appointed, would I scream and cry and bitch and moan? Probably not.
November 19, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be very clear here:
A law degree and some corporate law experience does not qualify you for SCOTUS.
Hillary is not qualified in a box.
She's can't compare with Archibald Cox.
She could not, would not qualify
Compared to justices by and by
She is not qualified, you see?
Because if she is, then so's you and me!
November 19, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
What qualifies one to sit on the Supreme Court?
November 19, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd much rather have Judge Anna Diggs Taylor who would make right-wingnuts' heads explode if she were selected to the Supreme Court. Yee haw! But she was born in 1932, so we need a younger version of her to haunt conservatives for decades!
November 19, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink