Friday, January 4, 2008

Bill Clinton in the Supreme Court?

Thanks to my father for the news tip!

CNN has picked up a largely ignored story, and is apparently letting the blogging world discuss this issue...

According to the CNN Report, Hillary Clinton is planning to appoint Bill Clinton to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court.

Of course, there are many issues that would likely restrict Clinton's appointment, unless the congress were overwhelmingly Democratic after the 2008 races, which include:

  • Perjury before the Congress by Clinton
  • His being disbarred
  • Precedent for Husband/Wife to serve on Executive and Judicial branch of Federal Government at the same time (Taft served as a Justice after being president, but not during the term of a spouse, of course)

One further issue with this idea is the ensuring that the establishment of the Clinton Dynasty lives on in US politics. A move, which as of last night, could prove fatal for the Clinton campaign.

What are your thoughts on this issue: Supreme Court Justice William J. Clinton... ??? ...


  1. He couldn't do worse than Thomas, could he?

  2. Oh... I am sure he could do much worse! Bill Clinton would be a prime example of one who would legislate from the bench... and as an associate judge, he would consistently attempt to grandstand, as if it was his court.

    He doesnt have the right personality to be a justice... or the right moral code...

  3. He's more qualified than both of the nominees Bush WANTED to put forth (and did in one case): Miers and Gonzales. And I think any fair-minded person would agree that Clinton has displayed a stronger moral code in the new millenium than Gonzales has. I mean, Clinton's spent the last several years raising money for tsunami victims and world heath crises (as well as b*tch-slapping Chris Wallace; it is really neither here nor there on the morality front, but it sure was fun to watch!), while Gonzales attempted to influence a sitting attorney general (Ashcroft) while he was under heavy sedation to justify administration policy, and also fired U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons and then lied about having any involvement in the affair.

    And as for "grandstanding associate justices", maybe it's time the left finally got one to balance out Scalia.

    The one thing I've never understood about Republicans is their hatred for Clinton. He was the most moderate president we've had on EITHER side in at least 30 years (we can turn into a separate argument whether this was by choice or him having to be out of necessity to get anything done with a Republican controlled leg. branch), and yet Republicans make it seem as if he's the Anti-Christ. It's makes you wonder what will happen when an ACTUAL liberal gets elected president. They'll be PINING for the Clinton years, then.

    Honestly, I think it would be a ridiculously poor political move on Hillary's part if she tried to do this, but as for the actual merits of the idea, I think he'd be very collegial and one of the more moderate justices (right of Ginsburg & Stevens, for sure, although that's not saying much).