HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » IMO, Hillary is heading f...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:25 PM

IMO, Hillary is heading for the Supreme Court rather than running in 2016.

What do you think?

49 replies, 2293 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply IMO, Hillary is heading for the Supreme Court rather than running in 2016. (Original post)
CK_John Jan 2013 OP
Flashmann Jan 2013 #1
hedgehog Jan 2013 #2
Skraxx Jan 2013 #3
CBGLuthier Jan 2013 #4
avebury Jan 2013 #49
BeyondGeography Jan 2013 #5
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #6
jberryhill Jan 2013 #9
Gman Jan 2013 #7
Bucky Jan 2013 #8
ananda Jan 2013 #10
samsingh Jan 2013 #11
Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #12
Faygo Kid Jan 2013 #13
CK_John Jan 2013 #18
Faygo Kid Jan 2013 #20
CK_John Jan 2013 #22
demwing Jan 2013 #24
CK_John Jan 2013 #27
CreekDog Jan 2013 #39
graham4anything Jan 2013 #14
customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #16
graham4anything Jan 2013 #25
customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #40
graham4anything Jan 2013 #46
customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #48
tarheelsunc Jan 2013 #42
customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #15
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #17
winter is coming Jan 2013 #19
AndyA Jan 2013 #21
La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2013 #23
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #26
onenote Jan 2013 #28
HockeyMom Jan 2013 #29
Qutzupalotl Jan 2013 #30
HooptieWagon Jan 2013 #31
sabbat hunter Jan 2013 #32
CK_John Jan 2013 #34
TeamPooka Jan 2013 #33
lastlib Jan 2013 #35
karynnj Jan 2013 #36
Flying Squirrel Jan 2013 #37
no_hypocrisy Jan 2013 #38
tarheelsunc Jan 2013 #41
hughee99 Jan 2013 #43
EastKYLiberal Jan 2013 #44
tblue37 Jan 2013 #45
MzShellG Jan 2013 #47

Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:28 PM

1. I'm all for her

Being in any position from which she can wreak havoc and damage on the wrongwing.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:28 PM

2. That works for me! I think she'd be a better justice than President -

provided she can get Senate approval.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:29 PM

3. No Way, Not That She Wouldn't Be Terrific, But We Need Youth on the Court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:29 PM

4. Sorry but that would be a terrible waste of a SC position because of her age.

We need liberal justices that can serve for 20 to 30 years. No one over the age of 60, preferably 50 should even be considered.

I would rather she be president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBGLuthier (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:49 PM

49. Totally agree! I want liberals on the Court who

could serve for a really long time. Hillary would be a great justice but I wouldn't want the risk of having the slot open up in the not all too distant future and possibly ending up with a conservative justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:30 PM

5. She's not too old to be President but she is too old to go to the Supreme Court

50 or so is what you want for the Court. Remember who we're playing against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:30 PM

6. Sadly, no.

I am not an ageist on anything except the Supreme Court because it is such a vital and important role. With her recent medical problems, and the fact she's 65 (and who knows how old when there is a vacancy), it's far too risky to put her on the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:37 PM

9. Mortalist!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:32 PM

7. Probably depends on the first opportunity

be it the SCOTUS, or if there's no opening in 4 years, running for POTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:37 PM

8. Any president who puts a 65+ year old on the court is a fool

Ginsberg at 60 and Alito at 55 were already pushing the envelope. I expect most future nominees will be 45-55 for the rest of my lifetime, unless they rewrite the tenure laws (which'd take a constitutional amendment, btw) to maybe an 18 year term (that's probably about average anyway). Clarence Thomas was 41 or 42 when appointed. Sadly, you can't fire a judge for mediocrity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:39 PM

10. Whatever she wants to do is fine with me!

..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:39 PM

11. she should be President in 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:40 PM

12. She would be fine in either position, but she could serve longer in SC.

Her service to the US is broad, has a great understanding of the law and Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:42 PM

13. Not a chance. Not at her age.

Sorry, but the reality is no one over 55 is ever going to be named to the court again. Plus, that's not where she wants to be, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:51 PM

18. I believe it is already a done deal. As soon as Kerry gets confirmed, Justice Ginsburg

will resign and Hillary will be appointed. We should know by March.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:02 PM

20. Sorry, isn't going to happen. Where do you get your information?

I'll have whatever you're smoking/drinking, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:06 PM

22. Ovaltine is my limit. Info is what I believe will happen, nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:08 PM

24. Why do you believe that?

Please explain

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:17 PM

27. I know what I think but I have no idea why I think it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:03 PM

39. you have a really atrocious record of predictions

if it's true, some evidence from you is in order.

otherwise, don't tempt me with the laundry list of lulz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:45 PM

14. No, she will be the 45th president and nominate President Obama for the court in 2018 (like Taft)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:49 PM

16. I can see that happening

Especially if he can really get his base out for her. But first, there would have to be no bruising fight for the nomination between her and Biden. I would expect that Barack Obama would really be put on the spot if both of them asked for his support in the primaries. If he did the favor for Joe, even if she won, she'd still be resentful towards him, no matter how hard he campaigned for her in the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:09 PM

25. I have said it before, Biden should be the VP in her first term at least

 

He can run to sort of block/flank her, not to tear her down, but to stop any possible other challenges, then be the VP

if it's done for the continuation of President Obama's two terms, it could work, and be historic on both sides.

I could see Joe being okay with this. Longest running VP would be amazing.

I don't see the Vice President getting ahead of Hillary in the polls, but working together,
they could basically make it a no challenge primary imho

President Obama would fully back Hillary if she were the nominee, even if he stayed neutral during the primary, and the only reason she didn't win in 2008 was his voters, who would vote for her now(like myself, I was NOT a big supporter of her back then, now I am).

And we need Bill Clinton to avidly support too, his support helped alot.
(if only Gore had not shunned him, made no sense in retrospect for him to do that.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:38 AM

40. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride?

Being as Joe took a grab at the brass ring both in 1988 and 2008, and having served two full terms as VP, he's got to think that for 2016, it's now or never. Hillary at least has a shot at it in 2020 if the terrain looks better for Repukes in 2016, but Joe would be nearly 78 on Election Day, 2020, while she would only have just turned 73.

Yes, both of those ages look pretty damned old to a lot of people here, but they aren't the same thing they were when your grandparents died in their seventies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:46 AM

46. After 44 consecutive men have been president, don't you think it's time for a woman?

 

and President Obama foreshadowed that in his inauguration speech, talking about equal rights for women.

There is a reason there are 1000s and 1000s of people who could have been president

and only 44(actually 43 as one is counted twice) have actually been President.

Most people (even if they are great and talented and really nice guys), don't become President.

And no, I don't wish Jeb Bush to become President with Chris Christie as VP.

It takes a Clinton to defeat a Bush.
Look how badly Bush defeated the pair from Mass, 41 making the phrase "dukakissed" into a word, and 43 defeating John Kerry.

but look how Bill Clinton defeated 41.
and Hillary45 will defeat Jeb Bush.

Again, it takes a Clinton to beat a Bush.
(and Jeb was too chicken to run against President Obama, so it goes without saying, President Obama easily would have beaten Jeb

but Jeb would most likely beat any candidate other than Hillary45, it is sad to say.
No matter the truth about 41, look at all the beloved stories that came out when 41 looked to be near the end after Thanksgiving through Christmas. For whatever reason, people all across the country seem to admire him (not W), but Jeb is not W and unfortunately, other candidates could easily lose to Jeb in 2016. But not Hillary45.
The Bush spell don't work against the Clinton's.

It takes a Clinton to defeat a Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #46)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:42 PM

48. She certainly has her right to take one last grab at the brass ring

What I found odd was thinking that Joe Biden would be content to be VP for yet another four years. He's earned his shot at trying to grab that ring, too, and this is indeed his last possible grab. I can see him putting Hillary on the ticket, and promising to serve only one term if elected, to deal with the age thing.

That would be true statesmanship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:45 AM

42. I love this idea. That might be enough to make conservatives just give up. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:47 PM

15. Not gonna happen

In addition to all the reasons listed above, she knows she could win a nomination and the Presidency far easier than the time she'd have in the Senate getting confirmed. She's no blank slate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:50 PM

17. She doesn't want it...

She has said so fairly recently...I don't think it's rough and tumble enough for her... Besides, I doubt she would be able to tolerate Thomas and Scalia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:57 PM

19. Seems unlikely, but my, it would be fun to see!

I don't think she's really interested, although I'm sure she'd be a diligent and fair justice if she were appointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:05 PM

21. Hillary Clinton would be good in the White House or on the SCOTUS.

I can easily see her as President or s Supreme Court Justice.

After her testimony on Benghazi this week, I'm more impressed with her than ever. She handles herself very well, regardless of the situation. She's incredibly smart and Bill Clinton would make a great First Gentleman!

Talk about setting new precedents...the first female President, the first First Gentleman, who is also a former President himself...it will be a very long list of new precedents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:07 PM

23. i dont see either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:13 PM

26. Awfully tempting to run for President when every poll shows that you are the front-runner (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:18 PM

28. Since you asked: I think you're wrong.

Among other reasons, HRC is 65, which makes her older than Roberts, Alito and Thomas. Its just not a smart move. Keep in mind that the number of justices appointed to the court at that age or older probably can be counted on one hand. Since 1930 (over 80 years), I think only two justices were 65 or older when appointed.

As always, your predictions are entertaining, albeit off-base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:26 PM

29. Whatever my former Senator, who I voted for,

chooses to do is HER decision and is fine with me. CHOICE!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:31 PM

30. That would be great.

She'll stay there for life, taunting conservatives, rather than disappearing after one or two presidential terms.

Of course, she pissed off a bunch of senators this week who will need to approve her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:38 PM

31. No, too old.

And IMO too corporate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:39 PM

32. I am not sure how qualified she is

for the position.

She hasn't practiced law in years. Her area of law was not constitutional law.

She is a wonderful person, has made a great SoS, but I do not see her as a member of the SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabbat hunter (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:47 PM

34. Being a lawyer is not even required, and I' m sure she is a quick study. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:39 PM

33. I would put a younger person on the court. You want to hold those slots for as long as possible and

Madame Secretary has a greater destiny ahead of her right now IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:50 PM

35. Repugs would filibuster her.

She would never be confirmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:12 PM

36. No

1) She has never shown interest in that
2) No President would nominate someone over 65. Look at the ages of Bush's and Obama's picks. They get lifetime appointments and each side wants people who will be there a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:37 PM

37. Well, it beats Chief Justice Jenna Bush

(Anyone remember this video?)



Sigh... it's completely tongue in cheek, he said before the jury hide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:00 PM

38. One word: filibuster

Wish it weren't so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:40 AM

41. Not going to happen. If people are debating whether she is "too old" for the Presidency,

why would Obama want to nominate her to the court when he could instead nominate a justice who can leave a representation of his interests in the courtroom for the next 40 years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:57 AM

43. I don't think she'd make it through confirmation,

and I don't think any president would take the political hit for nominating her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:19 AM

44. I hope she retires now and lets a more progressive candidate make a go at it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:41 AM

45. No. A nominee fot USSC needs to be young enough for what is essentially a

lifetime appointment to protectthe Democratic president's effect on future court decisions. If a USSC justice dies or retires during a Republican presidency, we will get a court packed with RWers who can shape public life for a generation--like Roberts probably will.

I like HC and think she'd be a great USSC justice, but she's too old. We'd lose that seat again too soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:40 AM

47. She should be President in 2016 and Biden as SOS......

I'm still holding out for Michelle Obama to be appointed to the SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread