Is Hillary Clinton Supreme Court Bound?

5


Flickr photo by sskennel
Hillary Clinton's served in two of the three branches of the U.S. government. Could the third be next?

With Justice John Paul Stevens making official his plans to retire from the Supreme Court this past weekend, the secretary of state and former senator's name is being bandied about as a possible replacement.

A polarizing figure at times, it's true, the Yale Law School grad has one major thing going for her -- Clinton has never been a judge. Which means no line of judicial rulings to be picked apart in the Congressional confirmation process.

Which is not to say the former First Lady is lacking in judicial experience. An attorney for Arkansas' Rose Law Firm during the '70s and '80s, she served on the faculty of the University of Arkansas Law School and was a presidential appointee during the Carter administration to the board of the Legal Services Corporation.

Clinton's name came to the forefront this weekend thanks not to some comment from the Obama administration -- which has vowed to quickly fill the retiring Stevens' seat -- but from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. Which means take this one with a grain of salt (the UPI went so far as to call it preposterous).

She would no doubt be a difficult sell to Republicans in Congress -- in no small part because of her husband's record of Supreme Court appointments -- but is it that preposterous?

It takes away the risk that she'd run for president again (against her current boss), making it a relatively easy sell to Democrats. It puts another female on the bench, and at 62, she's fairly young.

And on a purely personal level, the judicial robes would secure Clinton -- who has slowly been moving out of her husband's shadow -- her own legacy.

Would you like to see Hillary make the move to the judicial branch?

5 Comments

To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

nonmember avatar Norman Reitzel

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: The court needs at least one strong ideological liberal. While I'm generally a fiscal conservative, these times are a hundred years after 1910, and the far right is a bigger danger to our society than a strong minority leftist in the Supreme Court.

meriana meriana

I'd like to see Hillary shut up, go home and stay there...

nonmember avatar thomas

i think she shouldnt because i want her as president

nonmember avatar Amanda

I would love to see Hilary in a judicial position. i really don't see the presidency in her future. Not that I'm against it, I just don't see it. But I see her being a very strong justice. Hilary doesn't make bones about where she stands. I love that about her, even if I don't always agree with her. Standing firm is an enormously awesome asset for a judge. And as a woman, I fully support more women on the bench. We need to make sure more women are involved in groundbreaking rulings that involve women's rights. Too many many have been allowed to rule on women's issues for too long.

1-5 of 5 comments
F