Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  Stupid Questions

Will Obama Pick Hillary for Supreme Court?

clintonobama62345

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Ha.

[NYDN]

By:           editor editor
On:           May 4, 2009
Tagged: , ,

  • 20 Comments
    • Bunion
      Bunion

      it’s Oprah!

      May 4, 2009 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DeanP
      DeanP

      This whole suggestion that Hillary should be put on the Court is just so dumb that it makes my head explode. She’s never been a judge, first off. But second, it makes what’s already an over-politicized Supreme Court even worse. And it demeans the judiciary–rather than a qualified judge with lots of appellate experience being nominated, it ends up using the Supreme Court as a sort of plum patronage position.

      May 4, 2009 at 4:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dgz
      dgz

      @Bunion: haha!
      i’m glad queerty has the good sense to recognize Hillary’s possible nomination as ridiculous. she’s perfectly happy in her position as the world’s most important diplomat, and much better suited to the executive branch.

      May 4, 2009 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kris.
      Kris.

      As far as I know, you have to actually have been a judge to be a supreme court judge. This is hilarious.

      May 4, 2009 at 4:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Kris.:

      Actually, you don’t. Technically, you don’t even have to have knowledge of the law.

      But everyone who has been on the Supreme Court has been a lawyer at some point. But not all have been judges. In fact, that’s only been a very strong trend in the past 20-30 years.

      May 4, 2009 at 4:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rigs
      rigs

      Hillary hasn’t practiced law since the 80’s as far as I know, and it wouldn’t be a good move. Plus, why would she wanna give up SoS? That’s a launching pad to the WH, SCOTUS Judge? not so much…

      May 4, 2009 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pragmatist
      Pragmatist

      I seriously doubt she’d be interested. The Clintons are, and have always been, about maximizing their own personal power. Supreme Court judges have tremendous ideological power (i.e., the power to cement their ideology into the Constitution), but they don’t wield much personal power. They don’t hire and fire high-ranking government officials. They can’t set legislative agendas. They can’t trade their influence for massive campaign contributions. Etc.

      May 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee
      Lee

      Who knows?

      But, yes, the Constitution doesn’t define qualifications, only gives the authority to the President to nominate and the Senate to approver or disapprove.

      While a practicing attorney, she was twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. Her service on the Court would be as progressive, as gay/women/children/racial minority positive as ANYONE with the possibility of being ratified.

      And it would have the added bonus of possibly causing the cardiac arrests of many professional Obambotic Hillary Haters who are still in intensive care after he named Mrs. AntiChrist to his Cabinet.

      May 4, 2009 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DeanP
      DeanP

      @Lee: You think they’d be bad? Imagine how Republicans would react. While I don’t want her on the Court, it might be worth it to see the gnashing of teeth of the Republicans, as well as the sight of their heads simultaneously exploding.

      May 4, 2009 at 5:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee
      Lee

      Republican heads exploding?

      Tinky Winky want more!!!

      May 4, 2009 at 5:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dabq
      Dabq

      I would love that as she is as smart as a whip and would be just fine on the bench and could stand up to the hate filed Roberts, Scalia and Alitio,and Lord knows she is more qualified that Clarence Thomas is and he’s been on that seat for years now and is still clueless. But, I don’t think she would want it, she seems to be quite happy in her current spot and is doing a great job and she is doing the best job of getting the USA respected in the world community again.

      May 4, 2009 at 5:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DeanP
      DeanP

      @Dabq: Kris–there’s no constitutional requirement that a new justice have formerly been a judge. The first section of article 3 reads: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

      The remaining sections say nothing else about qualification. Obama could appoint anyone he wants.

      May 4, 2009 at 7:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael W.
      Michael W.

      @Lee: Lol, the nerve of a Clintonista saying that Obama supporters are in intensive care.

      And how many websites are there devoted to the thousands of forever-butthurt Clintonistas consoling themselves with daily Obama hatred? I’m sure you’re registered at a few of them.

      May 4, 2009 at 7:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DeanP
      DeanP

      @Michael W.: @Lee: Girls, girls, girls: The civil war is over. We can all make nice now and get on with the business of running/fixing the country.

      May 4, 2009 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee
      Lee

      Ah, the ever consistent Michael W., his head up Obama’s ass, making him smile by humming “Nearer My God To Thee.”

      May 4, 2009 at 8:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mitch
      Mitch

      Regarding judges and their qualifications for the Supreme Court: One certainly doesn’t need to have been a judge at all to be considered for the SC. Harriet Miers, anyone? Rehnquist was a lawyer when he was nominated, not a judge. Ditto Lewis Powell. Ditto Abe Fortas. Ditto Arthur Goldberg, who was previous US Secretary of Labor under Kennedy when he was nominated. Ditto Byron White, who was the US Attorney General when nominated. Ditto Earl Warren, a lawyer who had been a senator and governor. Ditto Tom Clark, who had been US Attorney General. Too many others to list. In any case, it would be a bad move to have Clinton nominated, since she barely has been in office as Secretary of State. As for her skills as a lawyer, she was once named one of the top 100 lawyers in America. Surely skills and insights acquired during one’s professional career do not degrade to a tremendous degree.

      May 4, 2009 at 9:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex
      Alex

      Someone raised the point that there are essential no requirements, so Obama should pick the youngest reliable progressive he can find. I’m thinking Malia, but there are a lot of ardent pro-Sasha people out there.

      May 4, 2009 at 11:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • epluribusunumjk
      epluribusunumjk

      I would love it if Hillary was a Supreme Court Justice.

      The guy above me is right – technically, Joe the Plumber could be appointed a S.C. justice if Obama wanted and Congress allowed it.

      May 5, 2009 at 1:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GranDiva
      GranDiva

      @Kris.:
      Harriet Miers much?

      May 5, 2009 at 2:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HYHYBT
      HYHYBT

      I think she’d be a good pick, except that she’s needed where she is and probably wouldn’t want the job anyway, or at least not yet. Now, picking someone who’s not even a lawyer is another story. I’m against the idea, but available and scandal-free :)

      May 5, 2009 at 4:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.