Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Hillarysworld -> All things Hillary -> "Hillary for the court" (Brent Budowsky, The Hill, 4/12/10)
Post Info
TOPIC: "Hillary for the court" (Brent Budowsky, The Hill, 4/12/10)
Sanders


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
"Hillary for the court" (Brent Budowsky, The Hill, 4/12/10)
Permalink  
 

bg_headhill.jpg

"

Hillary for the court

By Brent Budowsky - 04/12/10 05:29 PM ET

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the person who stands out as his ideal replacement is Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The departure of Justice Stevens from the court represents a double-barreled disaster for progressivism in America, following the passing of the irreplaceable Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).

In the legislative branch, while the House has repeatedly passed major legislation, the Senate has become the graveyard for change. Republicans adopt obstructionist tactics on a magnitude unprecedented in the history of the nation. No single senator can replace the progressive principles, institutional savvy and personal relationships that made Sen. Kennedy so unique.

Justice Stevens is to the Supreme Court what Kennedy was to the Senate. What made Kennedy different as a senator, and what makes Stevens different as a Supreme Court justice, is the ability to believe in policies of high principle while navigating the process of the institution, to build the widest possible majority for the best possible result.

The names being mentioned as possible replacements for Justice Stevens are all highly qualified. I would find some of them more exciting than others, but none of them possesses the combination of qualities that makes Justice Stevens so unique. This is meant as praise for Justice Stevens, not criticism of those being mentioned to replace him.

Secretary of State Clinton would be the Super Bowl choice for Supreme Court justice. Like Stevens, she would almost certainly evolve into a kind of shadow chief justice. She would be a leader and pivot point for court liberals in the same way Stevens is, while Chief Justice John Roberts appears determined to move the court to the right, and reject judicial precedent that conservatives disapprove of, instead of shaping consensus among justices.

Secretary Clinton possesses an exceptionally rare combination of qualities for a Supreme Court justice. She is a legal authority in her own right on various areas of the law, both domestic and international. She has very high-level experience in both the legislative and executive branches. She has a very diverse set of life experiences, and the breadth of having reached out to the full range of people and cultures that constitute the American people and the American experience.

While gender should not be dispositive, it would be a plus for the court to have a third female justice. While religion should not be dispositive, her Protestant faith would offer diversity and depth to the court.

Above all, Secretary Clinton offers the kind of interpersonal skills and political savvy that make Justice Stevens such an important justice, and so hard to replace.

Continues @ The Hill

"


Great thought.. but the politics of this will probably not let this happen. I'd love it if it did happen.

For one thing, Pres.Obama would probably get a lot of Hillary supporters to view him a bit more favorably.  So, here's to hoping..


-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 12th of April 2010 09:07:23 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
freespirit


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

While I don't doubt that Hillary is an expert in several areas of the law, as the article claims, she has not been active as an attorney for quite a number of years, and she has not served in the capacity of judge at the local, state or federal level to my knowledge. I would imagine there are other potential candidates for the nomination who would be effective and who have had vast experience in the legal field. Granted, Hilary is known for being able to bring people together, setting aside personal and political differences, in order to work effectively and accomplish action for the greater good. While I have no doubt she would do a fine job, I tend to think serving in the SCOTUS is really a waste of her vast knowledge and talent, as well as a waste of the resources she has cultivated in the form of friends and contacts all over the world. She inspires loyalty from people of all cultures who recognize integrity, compassion, and quality leadership when they see it. These individuals could benefit this country and the planet in a variety of ways, and would likely not be utilized to the fullest extent if Hillary was placed on the court

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony
Sanders


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

As to the level of influence, a SCOTUS judge has a lot of influence on the future.

I am not sure that Hillary will want to run for POTUS, nor want to be SCOTUS.  But I would be delighted with either.

Yes, historically, there was no requirement for a SCOTUS to have been a judge in a lower court (or even have been a litigator for that matter).  There has been some dialog that Pres.Obama may be looking to bring in a non-judge into the SCOTUS to bring greater diversity.


I just came across the following a short while ago.

---------------------------------------------------------

Sen. Hatch Mentions Clinton As Possible SC Nominee

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/12/sen_hatch_mentions_clinton_as_possible_sc_nominee.html

Sens. Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy discuss the Supreme Court vacancy.

---------------------------------------------------------

It is nice to hear BOTH Sen.Hatch and Sen.Leahy opine that Hillary Clinton has done a good job for the whole country, not just for Democrats.


-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 12th of April 2010 11:17:51 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
Jen the Michigander


SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Permalink  
 

Not gonna happen.

__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!
Hillarysmygirl16


Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 2818
Date:
Permalink  
 

freespirit wrote:

While I don't doubt that Hillary is an expert in several areas of the law, as the article claims, she has not been active as an attorney for quite a number of years, and she has not served in the capacity of judge at the local, state or federal level to my knowledge. I would imagine there are other potential candidates for the nomination who would be effective and who have had vast experience in the legal field. Granted, Hilary is known for being able to bring people together, setting aside personal and political differences, in order to work effectively and accomplish action for the greater good. While I have no doubt she would do a fine job, I tend to think serving in the SCOTUS is really a waste of her vast knowledge and talent, as well as a waste of the resources she has cultivated in the form of friends and contacts all over the world. She inspires loyalty from people of all cultures who recognize integrity, compassion, and quality leadership when they see it. These individuals could benefit this country and the planet in a variety of ways, and would likely not be utilized to the fullest extent if Hillary was placed on the court



 

I agree Freespirit.  I happen to think Hillary is qualified for a lot of things but SCOTUS is not one of them. Hillary has no interest in serving on the Court.  She took SOS so that she can get her forgein Policy experience.  She would never accept this positon.  This is either Obots floating this in order to keep her down.  She would never accept this.  

__________________

4459303562_3f593359a2_m.jpg
Sanders


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

She is plenty qualified, that is not the issue.  A SCOTUS Judge does not need to have been a judge before.

Jen the Michigander wrote:

Not gonna happen.

You're probably correct.

On Obama's side, he will be happy to keep the opponents the "Party of 'Hello No'" - if Hillary is nominated, they would endorse! LOL

She will probably finish her SOS term just join the Clinton Foundation.

-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 12th of April 2010 11:34:53 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
Building 4112


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 798
Date:
Permalink  
 

Not going to happen.

__________________
Sanders


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

Yep. There is nothing to the rumor, so they have denied it quick.  Perhaps there is more to other rumors that they have not denied!


White House denies Hillary Clinton SCOTUS rumor (LegalInfoToday.com)
Excerpt:
There was just one problem with the boomlet in Hillary talk: It wasn’t true. Within a few hours of Hatch’s appearance, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told Politico’s Ben Smith that “the president thinks Secretary Clinton is doing an excellent job as secretary of state and wants her to remain in that position.”

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Nix Nascent Clinton-For-SCOTUS Campaign

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
Hillarysmygirl16


Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 2818
Date:
Permalink  
 

Hillary is not qualified I don't give a damn about requirements this is something serious and if Obama would nominate her and she would accept this country would suffer because we cannot afford to allow our courts to go to unqualified people.  We are not Obots we do not think Hillary can walk on water nor do we think she is qualified for things she is not.  She doesn't want this job and Obama knows this. Hillary is not an idiot she knows that if she wanted SCOTUS she would have been appointed judge by someone and then she would have done it the right way.
Folks this is a Hillary site but we are not a fan site. We are not Hillbots we can agree with her or not but the truth is there are a lot of positions where Hillary is not qualified. The Supreme Court is one of them.
There are plenty of qualified women and frankly I am sick of Hillary's name coming up like she is the only qualified woman in the USA.

__________________

4459303562_3f593359a2_m.jpg
rachel


Platinum

Status: Offline
Posts: 201
Date:
Permalink  
 

I like Hillary beign vocal, on SCOTUS you cant be.  Hillary does meet the requirements you don't have to have been a judge, you do have to know the law and that she does.

__________________
Hillarysmygirl16


Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 2818
Date:
Permalink  
 

I don't give two squats of piss how much she knows the law she IS NOT QUALIFIED. THERE WOULD BE NO ****ING SENATORS THAT WOULD VOTE FOR HER. I REALLY HATE PEOPLE WHO THINK SHE IS QUALIFIED FOR EVERYTHING. HILLARY IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE SCOTUS. THATS THE ****ING PROBLEM EVERYONE THINKS EVERYONE IS QUALIFIED.   She isn't going to take it and frankly she was a ****ing third rate lawyer.  Please people we are not Hillbots.  She doesn't have enough experience and she knows it.  We are talking the Supreme Court if its not a requirement then it ****ing should be. People who think she is qualified need to have their head examined.  This would make Barry's day though.

__________________

4459303562_3f593359a2_m.jpg
rachel


Platinum

Status: Offline
Posts: 201
Date:
Permalink  
 

Well this is your site, but I don't understand your anger.  Fine you don't think she is qualified to be on the SCOTUS, she meets the requirements you think there should be more fine, but I don't see how someonething thinking that she is equals worship or thinking she is a God.  I came to this site because it seemed like people were able to post opposing view points, but if people are just gonna ridcule people for having a different view then, it's defintely time to for me to look else where.  Again it's your site and of course you can run it how you want to.







Hillarysmygirl16 wrote:

I don't give two squats of piss how much she knows the law she IS NOT QUALIFIED. THERE WOULD BE NO ****ING SENATORS THAT WOULD VOTE FOR HER. I REALLY HATE PEOPLE WHO THINK SHE IS QUALIFIED FOR EVERYTHING. HILLARY IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE SCOTUS. THATS THE ****ING PROBLEM EVERYONE THINKS EVERYONE IS QUALIFIED.   She isn't going to take it and frankly she was a ****ing third rate lawyer.  Please people we are not Hillbots.  She doesn't have enough experience and she knows it.  We are talking the Supreme Court if its not a requirement then it ****ing should be. People who think she is qualified need to have their head examined.  This would make Barry's day though.



 



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Hillarysworld -> All things Hillary -> "Hillary for the court" (Brent Budowsky, The Hill, 4/12/10)
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard