Mr. Justice Clinton? Don't Bet On It
"The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But...Ah, Who Are We Kidding Here?"
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Bill Clinton | Hillary Clinton | Lying Bill Clinton | Supreme Court — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Prof. Douglas Kmiec suggests that Hillary Clinton, if elected, could have her husband follow the footsteps of former President Taft by appointing him to the Supreme Court. Taft was, in fact, a very good Chief Justice after being a failure as President, a job for which he never had the talent or desire.
Prof. Kmiec gets right some of the obvious problems with this parallel: Clinton, unlike Taft, has no prior judicial experience and loves politics much more than the law; Clinton, unlike Taft, would presumably not be taking the Chief Justice job; and Taft, unlike Clinton, never had his law license suspended for perjury in a judicial proceeding.
What Prof. Kmiec misses is the showstopper* - even beyond losing him as a campaigner - that would prevent Hillary Clinton, especially, from considering this: confirmation hearings.
Read On...
Nobody in her right mind who was at all sympathetic to Bill Clinton would ever want to see the man testify under oath again. And given the tendency of modern confirmation hearings to delve into any and all scandals in the nominee's past, hearings with Bill Clinton as the nominee would be both exhaustively lengthy and acrimonious and potentially uniquely damaging to Hillary personally. Assuming the Democrats hold control of the Senate they could potentially try to quash much questioning at the hearings, but even Republicans who hold principled objections to filibustering judges would be on firm ground blocking a floor vote until the Judiciary Committee was willing to hold a full hearing on the nominee.
I suppose in theory, I could imagine Hillary pulling such a stunt as a deliberate provocation and/or for the express purpose of breaking the tradition of such hearings. But I think it far more likely that she would avoid at any cost the spectacle of William Jefferson Clinton being sworn in to testify anywhere ever again.
* - I confess that I don't know whether there would also be legal problems with appointing a spouse to a federal judgeship, but since Prof. Kmiec refers to anti-nepotism laws precluding a Bill Clinton role in Hillary's Cabinet, I assume or at least hope he considered this angle.
UPDATED: A commenter at my blog points out that Kmiec and I both missed the obvious fact that the President's husband would have to recuse himself from an enormous number of cases, frequently to the detriment of Hillary's agenda. Another strike against Justice Bill.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Lieberman to Endorse McCain — Comments (26) »
Mr. Justice Clinton? Don't Bet On It 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"Would you approve of Hillary Clinton appointing her husband to the supreme court?"
Then Hillary is in bigger trouble than is widely believed.
so the question is, would he drop his robes as quickly as he dropped his pants?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
are you auditioning for gag writer on late night TV? This is good.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Although Bill was not a high tech guy, believing in doing things the old fashioned way, Monica Lewinsky stated that having returned to the room where she had left her Presidential paramour, she found the man Who Gave Us the Economy,performing an act of self satisfaction.
To add to and amend my first post, might we therefore expect Bill to do likewise when constrained to listen to lengthy court arguments? He does have a role model in the Judge mentioned.
At least Justice Ruth Bade Ginsburg will be safe, I think.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Clinton is such a panderer, and conservative judicial philosophy is actually fairly popular. I wonder if his complex need for popularity and legacy might actually cause him to be far less liberal than others Hillary might nominate?
We are talking about Mr. Welfare reform, who has a mysterious gaps in the speech archive on his web site (Fall 2003, because he supported the Iraq War at the time).
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Isn't bad enough we have this 'first lady' running for the presidency, claiming to have 35 years of experience, and no one can answer what the hell it represents. Experience in what: government lawyer? First lady of Arkansas? First lady in the WH? Partner in the Rose Law Firm? A senator from NY without a single piece of legislation to her name? What does any of that count for experience for leading a country? Worse yet, her two governmental leadership experiences - Arkansas Education and Healthcare were unmitigated disasters. Now, at the same time, we have to be fretting about what she's going to do with Bill. This is what's wrong with those two; they think the country owes them another presidency, as well as another job for Bill. Please, someone, make them disappear.
Groupies will literally do *anything* for their stars. Bill Clinton is the biggest rockstar the libs. have had since JFK. He could set himself on fire while pushing the button to destroy Omaha and people would still think he's hip. Janeane Garofalo sure wouldn't complain.
...today he'd be Joe Lieberman with charisma. And about as popular with his side of the aisle.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Hillary also took responsibility for selecting the first attorney general under the Clinton administration. That -- Kimba Wood and then Zoe Baird with back-to-back nanny problems -- turned into a huge embarrasment for the White House.
I just had a blog about this on this past Friday. My point was that the Republican senators gave Clinton his Supreme Court appointments, no matter how far left they were, and that even though Clinton was impeached by the House, I am not sure that the Republican senators would stop him. I also thought that Hillary would want to be rid of Bill, if she won the presidency. Hillary is such a control freak that she would not want anyone to ever think Bill was making ANY decisions.
In no way am I implying that Prof Kmiec saw my post, but it is good to see that someone way smarter than me had a similar thought.
nepotism notwithstanding, I doubt BC disinterest in the law would be of much concern (to liberals, anyway). It's not like they know or respect the law. If it feels good, then it must be allowed.
R.J.
...for hiding crouching interns, and such.
But I think Bill is holding out for SecGen UN. Much more rock-star potential there. (trips to Bali, hang out with Angeline Jolie, unlimited expense account, etc.)
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
... wouldn't President H. Clinton be forbidden from nomination President B. Clinton to anything owing to the Bobby Kennedy rule?
I would assume that Billy the bent one would have to recuse himself on anything having to do with:
1. The administration due to Hillary
2. Any issue regarding morals, common sense or decency.
3. Any issue involving the law since he has never practiced let alone sat on that side of the bench.
It is hard to imagine him eing able to take the oath.
In any event the attempt at this act could well be the trigger for the 2nd American revolution.
if the GOP is dumb enough to nominate RuPaul or Huckabee.
"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men