BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???

Subject: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Bobert
Date: 21 May 08 - 05:10 PM

Interesting op-ed in this mornings Washington Post by James Andrew Miller ("Next Stop, Supreme Court?")...

Here's the scenerio in a nutshell... Should Obama get the nomination he would get with the Clinton camp and if they are on board he would announce that if he is elected then he will appoint Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court should a vacancy occur, a likely occurance, during his term in office...

Hmmmmmm???

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: gnu
Date: 21 May 08 - 05:16 PM

I'll scratch your Barack if...

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 May 08 - 05:23 PM

Well her husband was head honcho, so it seems only fair.

G

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: radriano
Date: 21 May 08 - 05:25 PM

Gosh, three question marks.

You must really be confused, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Bobert
Date: 21 May 08 - 05:51 PM

Sorry...

It's kinda what I do... It's a literary twich...

Confused???

Nah, I could see her as one of the Supremes...

Or not...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Willie-O
Date: 21 May 08 - 06:07 PM

Bobert, roll another one. Even John Roberts was some kind of a judge before he got that big promotion.

Sen. Clinton has many fine qualities but I don't think they're the kind that make a judicious pronouncer of scholarly, nuanced opinions. (Mind you, she has that in common with some of the current benchwarmers--but I think they all held court somewhere before arriving in DC)

OTOH, if this gets around as a rumour, so many of her detractors will be having carpet-chewing fits and apoplectic seizures that I would recommend investing in companies that manufacture defibrillators.

W-O

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Bobert
Date: 21 May 08 - 06:19 PM

Well, she ***is*** a lawyer and there's always...

...Clarence Thomas who she could beat up with both hands tied behind her back...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 May 08 - 06:44 PM

Why not? I think that'd be a great thing to have happen!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 21 May 08 - 06:52 PM

Arrrrrrgh!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 08 - 06:54 PM

I wonder if Chongo will also be offered such a position so as to court the Primate vote?

I'm guessing probably not, but you never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 21 May 08 - 07:22 PM

Well, I've heard of the winner in a political contest throwing a bone to his vanquished opponent, but said bone usually comes from the big piece of steak that's sitting on the victor's plate. Somehow, a Supreme Court nomination seems a step removed from the goal of high executive office. It's more like a banana than a bone. Oh, there's nothing wrong with bananas (Chongo likes 'em), but Hillary strikes me as being too much of a carnivore to be happy with them. She'd rather have something with the taste of blood on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Bill D
Date: 21 May 08 - 07:42 PM

I kinda like Hillary, but *I* would protest if that happened...there's too many better qualified folks available. Many other things she might do...and as SHE said, she has a very good job now!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 08 - 07:51 PM

Hmm. . . .   Dunno about Hillary as one of the "Nine Old Men." But we've had a helluvalot worse!!

Maybe VEEP? Or a cabinet position? I can think of a couple spots where she'd be a real crackerjack!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Bill D
Date: 21 May 08 - 09:26 PM

Is there a "Secretary of Righteous Stubbornness" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 08 - 10:09 PM

Sounds like a pretty good solution to me. The ultimate "kicking upstairs". And I can't imagine she'd turn it down. And, as the column pointed out, Obama would sure have somebody on the Supreme Court on his wavelength--there's hardly a dime's worth of difference between them on most issues. It seems clear that's why the campaign has turned so nasty--it's all about differences in personality, appearance, gender etc--with Hillary attempting to make huge distinctions on policy--distinctions which mostly don't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:16 AM

I'm with the NO GO camp. Important as the Supreme Court is, I can't imagine Senator Clinton signing on for a sinecure, especially no older than she currently is. My bet is that she has a lot of vigorour ideas and plans left in her and I expect we'll be hearing a lot about them, and her. Like the Clinton's or not, they are public servants and they love politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:49 AM

Sounds odd to me.
Shouldn't the article have been about Obama losing to Clinton by 35% in Kentucky thereby putting his eventual nomination in serious jeopardy?
Let the voters vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court DECISION ???
From: Donuel
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:22 AM

The Supreme Court will be deciding if Florida has to have their delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention under the equal protection clause.
The court is expected to find that John McCain has won the Democratic nomination.

Hillary is not pleased with the presumed decision but she was quoted as saying that at least John has a better electability from white blue collar workers than Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: jeffp
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:36 AM

I think Secretary of Health and Human Services would be a great fit.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 08 - 10:21 AM

"Shouldn't the article have been about Obama losing to Clinton by 35% in Kentucky thereby putting his eventual nomination in serious jeopardy?
Let the voters vote."

The Oregon voters did.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 08 - 10:29 AM

"It's more like a banana than a bone. "

I have never tased a banana. I skin 'em, throw away the bone and there's nothin' left to eat. I don't understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:51 AM

You're right, Ebbie. She'd probably see it as being put out to pasture.   Something possibly for later, not now. Of course, Roberts is considerably younger than she is. But his whole career has been the law.

However, if she thinks after the campaign she has run, and continues to run, that she has any chance to ever be the Democratic presidential candidate again, she is sadly deluded. As I've mentioned before, she had plenty of chances to withdraw gracefully, throwing her support to Obama--and thereby set herself up for the future.   But her "bitter end" approach has sealed her fate as far as presidential politics is concerned.    There are already a lot of Democratic pols who feel the Clintons have been only looking out for #1 from the start. And who remember 1994--and the very slow recovery since then---not helped by Bill's lack of self-control. The Reagan parallel does not hold--he at least was nowhere near as divisive in 1976--making racist appeals, even--as she has been. And the collapse of her campaign, from undisputed front-runner, has been stunning.

NY Senator perhaps--though even there she now has problems.   For instance the pathetic excuse she made for the loss of jobs since 2000--she assumed Gore would be elected--is now widely known. At least she doesn't have to run again til 2012. A lot could happen in that time.

And possibly, if re-elected as NY Senator, Majority Leader eventually--if Obama wins in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 12:30 PM

"The Oregon voters did."
Yes they did.
By about 18%.
That is the kind of result the popular choice should be achieving in every state, so late in the game.
Losing by 35% & 41% percent in consecutive weeks and winning one by 18% in a "Mail in" vote should be alarming to those who have a vested interest in his candidacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:00 PM

Jim, did O take the state or not? Sheesh . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:09 PM

Winning by 59 to 41 is a lot healthier than Boosh got in either election IIRC. The implication that running a close race is a bad indication for the general election doesn't really make much sense to me. Sure, it would be grand if all Democrats were unanimous, but it ain't gonna happen. The general election will be a different matter, I suspect.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: DougR
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:27 PM

Gag!
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Jeri
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:33 PM

Doug, I'm in awe of the courage it must take to post a one word response like that without actually having read the thread.

I'm also pretty amazed at how Clinton can be losing by 'only' x percentage points (in primaries) or x delegates total and claim victory, as if losing by so little must mean Barack isn't winning. Are people that stupid? (I know, that question is itself stupid.)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:33 PM

The Democratic primary results cannot be extrapolated to the general election. Google "operation chaos", and look at some of the stats regarding people switching their registration in the weeks before primaries. IMHO it is no small coincidence that Hillary's "constituency" for the primaries has the same demographics as Bush/MCain voters. Hmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Donuel
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:42 PM

I would like to see Bill the lawyer argue a case before Hillary on the 9 judge bench.



note that
Scalia does not excuse himself for conflicts of interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Bobert
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:17 PM

Yes, TIA... The Limbaugh Factor has to be tramedous ion states where people have less education...

Wes Virgina nd Kentucy come to mind...

Too bad that we let morons vote...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:58 PM

The party-switching was intense in PA, Indiana and Ohio. All cited by Clinton as proof of her electability. Yup, she was elected in those states, but by people who are damn sure going to vote McCain in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:45 PM

Bingo.






And for a large number of those who voted for her in WV, PA, KY, etc., aside from race, one of the main reasons appears to be the memory of the "good times" of the 1990's under Bill.

And she has of course encouraged the delusion that she can bring them back.

But there are a few problems.

1) In large part the 90's prosperity was based on the dot-com boom--which filtered down. It was not exactly caused by Bill Clinton--except insofar that he was willing to keep Greenspan, a Republican, as I recall,--with his low-interest policy, at the Fed.   

2) When she does bring the good times back, could we have them this time without the bust that followed?

3) Most of the "good times" were after 1994, when the Democrats lost both houses of Congress.   I wonder how many of the good Democratic voters who swallowed her line about bringing the good times back are enthusiastic about the Democrats again losing both Houses. After all, that's the way it happened before.   And some articles I've read credit the gridlock that resulted between Clinton and Congress for whatever good times there were. The thesis would be that that gridlock prevented Bill from interfering with the free market.

4) $120 per barrel oil might make a repeat of the 90's prosperity a bit challenging.

Not that we can expect her voters to actually consider any of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: DougR
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:15 AM

Donuel: Cite the case that Scalia did not excuse himself but, in your opinion, he should have, and the reason you think that he should have.

Jeri: I read the threads. I still say, "Gag."
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: mg
Date: 23 May 08 - 02:51 AM

She is too dishonest and/or deluded. Why in the world a supreme court position? If they have to give her something, Health and Welfare and let her reform health. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Clinton???
From: Bobert
Date: 23 May 08 - 07:51 AM

Dishonest and deluded: Try Scalia on for size...