Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary Clinton for Supreme Court Justice

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:48 PM
Original message
Hillary Clinton for Supreme Court Justice
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/051

Hillary Clinton for Supreme Court Justice
Submitted by mark karlin on Wed, 02/20/2008 - 6:46am. EditorBlog

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Mark Karlin
Editor and Publisher
February 20, 2008

How does Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton sound?

It sounds superb to us. Freed of the constraints of "triangulating" political considerations that have hobbled and severely compromised her progressive values, a seat on the Supreme Court would be an ideal way for Clinton to help steer our Constitution back to its original moorings. Without having to worry about voting based on future campaign strategy, she would be liberated to impact America in a profoundly positive way.

And if the Chief Justice position should somehow open (although Roberts is quite young, but who knows, he might tire of a court moving in a different direction if the Democrats regain control of the White House -- and increase their majority in the Senate), then Chief Justice Clinton -- Hillary that is -- sounds mighty fine to us.

You might ask why I would be so supportive of Hillary Clinton serving on the Supreme Court when I have been so critical of her record. Well, the question answers itself. It is her politically calculated record during her Senate term, and the positions that she supported during the eight years in the White House that she counts among her 35 years of experience of which I have been most skeptical as a progressive.

But a seat on the Supreme Court would free Clinton to put her keen intellect to work in resolving Constitutional issues that desperately need to be saved from a wrecking ball by a Court that has veered dangerously to the right. It would allow her the potential to leave an enormous legacy, without worrying about how to vote because of the next election coming down the line.

This is an idea, by the way, that a BuzzFlash reader sent in to us early this morning, and it's one -- given an Obama victory in November -- that would probably make it through the Senate because the Dems are highly likely to pick up more Senate seats in the November election. Secondly, Senators are normally quite deferential to voting for other Senators when it comes to appointments such as the Supreme Court. Even the avalanche of opposition that the right-wing media mongers would raise would probably not stop a Clinton Supreme Court confirmation.

So let's unite the Democratic Party, win the White House, and put Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court.

Sounds good to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. works for me
I think that would be wonderful. She's be terrific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shenmue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Kind of nice, actually.
Pretty decent post, and I don't usually like yours. :shrug: Okay, then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Ha! Gee, thanks. I'll keep that in mind. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. No, thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LakeSamish706 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I'm with you, I don't want to see HRC in any capacity actually. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisa58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. that would be great
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaniqua6392 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. If she does not become President Hillary Clinton...
I think that she would be great on the SC. She has been a strong advocate for women and children and civil rights for decades. It would help ensure abortion rights for women at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-21-08 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. Didn't her client list (when shd practiced law) includ a lot of big corporations?
Anybody had data at there fingertips showing what percentage of her clients were big corporations? I am pressed for time this morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-21-08 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. That list will certainly be shorter than Roberts' and Alito's
And unlike those two, I would trust her to recuse herself from cases where she did have a genuine conflict of interest. Having been in private practice should not preclude ascension to the bench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. That is an interesting thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. No way - just what BushInc and his war profiteer cronies need - another protective vote.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
10. I don't know. It's certainly an intriguing proposition....
Let's just say I wouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madaboutharry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
11. Actually, she would probably
be well suited for the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. I don't like the idea
Rethugs put young judges on that will have impact for 20-30 years. I think HRC is simply to old based on this new partisan tactic of going young with the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grmamo Donating Member (304 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. I would like Clinton and Edwards there.....maybe we could get a couple of dems. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Dems should follow Bush in one respect: pick someone so young they'll be on court until
the next century.

Maybe draft some Doogie Howser right before he graduates from law school at 14.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
14. it's a nice face saving exit. Whether it's good for the rest of us depends on...
whether the author's assumption is correct, that Hillary is really progressive at heart but that is obscured by triangulating and other Machiavellian hooha.

The more I think about Walmart and other corporate law stuff, the less I think she is a closet progressive on economic issues.

While she might make lefties happy on gays and abortion, on all the other issues of corporate rights and the erosion of civil rights and democracy they demand so we won't impair their access to greater profits, she will screw us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-21-08 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
16. How many times have we planned who would get what cabinest position
and our candidate lost.


So all you that are doing it. CUT IT OUT! Okay I'll be nice and say it softly. Cut it out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC