Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Cynthetiq · 05-27-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

View: Next Stop, Supreme Court?
Source: Washington Post
posted with the TFP thread generator

Next Stop, Supreme Court?
By James Andrew Miller
Wednesday, May 21, 2008; A19

As the primary season nears a merciful end, the Clinton-Obama conflict is giving way to Obama-Clinton conjecture. Many in the Democratic Party support a so-called dream ticket of both, with Barack Obama at the top. They believe Hillary Clinton has earned the No. 2 spot through her feisty, never-say-die campaign, and they worry that her supporters will stay home in November if she isn't part of the ticket.

Opponents counter that in terms of the electoral vote, Clinton might not help carry any states that wouldn't already go for Obama. Moreover, the possibility of both Clintons ganging up on a President Obama could make life more difficult for him than anything the Republicans could ever put together.

But there is another way to foster party unity without forcing a political marriage.

It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy. Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one.

Obama and Clinton have wound up agreeing on nearly every major issue during the campaign; at the end of the day, they share many orthodoxies. Unless the Supreme Court were to get mired in minuscule details of what constitutes universal health care, Obama could assume that he'd be pleased with most Clinton votes, certainly on major issues such as abortion.

Obama could also appreciate Clinton's undeniably keen mind. Even Clinton detractors have noted her remarkable mental skills; she would be equal to any legal or intellectual challenge she would face as a justice. The fact that she hasn't served on a bench before would be inconsequential, considering her experience in law and in government.

If Obama were to promise Clinton the first court vacancy, her supporters would actually have a stronger incentive to support him for president than they would if she were going to be vice president. Given the Supreme Court's delicate liberal-conservative balance, she would play a major role in charting the country's future; there is no guarantee that a Clinton vice presidency would achieve such importance.

For nearly a year and a half, Clinton has been fighting a bruising battle. Many appointees and officials from her husband's administration have turned their backs on her; she has lost the support of friends she had every reason to believe would stand by her. She has campaigned tirelessly only to discover that, according to polls, more than half the populace mistrusts her. Yes, she can still hope for 2012 or 2016, but why trust that she will be viewed differently next time around? (A recent CNN "quick poll" found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed someone other than Clinton would be the first female president.)

Instead of subjecting herself to a long wait and another possible defeat, she could don one of those roomy black robes, make a potentially ineradicable impact on the course of the republic -- and never again have to worry about being liked.

Senate confirmation would be all but certain, even putting aside the gains that Democrats are likely to make in November. Clinton could be confirmed in the current alignment. Democrats would want to support their new president, and those who like Clinton would vote for her. Members of either party who aren't fans might also be happy enough about her leaving the Senate to vote to confirm her.

Obama could also trust that Clinton would maintain her image as a fighter after arriving at the court. Her tenacity has never been more apparent. President Obama would engender praise (at least from Democrats) at the prospect of Hillary going toe to toe with Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito. Clinton's gumption and determination might make her one of the most powerful forces ever on the court, particularly when it comes to swaying other justices when the court is closely divided.

Bill Clinton has set the family bar high in terms of overcoming setbacks. It's not inconceivable that Hillary could rise again and one day be elected president -- but it couldn't happen for at least four years. An Obama promise to nominate Clinton to the Supreme Court would more than go a long way toward forging the unity Democrats want and need for November. It would preserve Clinton's role as a dedicated public servant and guarantee her the role of a lifetime.

Quote:

View: Hillary: Too Old For High Court
Source: Mother Jones
posted with the TFP thread generator

Hillary: Too Old For High Court
There's been lots of chatter lately suggesting that Barack Obama should promise Hillary Clinton a seat on the Supreme Court as a sort of runner-up prize and inducement for her to finally get out of the presidential race. Bloggers have debated her fitness for the job, whether she'd want it, or whether it would even be a good idea. But all of this is much ado about nothing. There is no way Hillary, or her husband for that matter, will ever warm a seat on the high court, for one major reason: She is simply too old.

Like the rest of the federal judiciary, Supreme Court justices serve for life. That's why Republicans over the past 15 or 20 years have made a very active and conscious effort to fill those seats with the youngest possible candidates as a way of preserving their influence for generations. The average age of GOP nominees for Supreme Court justice since 1981, including O'Connor, is 50, a full decade younger than Hillary. (Indeed, there's not a person on the court today who was older than 60 when nominated.)

Democrats haven't had a chance to pick as many candidates, but they clearly haven't made age as much of a priority. No doubt that will change should they retake the White House in the fall because, as Republicans have shown, the math is simply too compelling. Consider that when George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas in 1991, Thomas was only 43 years old. If he hangs on as long as the court's current veteran John Paul Stevens, 88, the country will be stuck with nearly a half-century of Thomas jurisprudence.

Compare that with the tenure of Clinton-appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was nominated at age 60, a year younger than Hillary is now. If she matches Stevens' longevity, she'd still have 15 fewer years on the job than Thomas. Certainly the court could benefit from the turnover that comes with shorter tenures, but if you're Obama, looking to create some kind of liberal legacy on the court, a 62 or 65-year-old Hillary isn't it.

Instead, my money is on Neal Katyal, the current liberal rock start of Supreme Court advocates. Katyal argued and won the critical Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case in 2005, in which the court ruled that the Bush administration's military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay violated the Geneva Conventions. He clerked for Stephen Breyer as well as the dean of liberal law, Guido Calabresi, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Katyal is well-connected, too, having worked in the Clinton administration Justice Department as an adviser for National Security Affairs.

Best of all, Katyal is but 38, not to mention a total stud, and of South Asian descent. Of course, with his national security background, his resume also puts him first in line for a host of jobs in an Obama administration (he's already done some work for him), from attorney general to solicitor general. As someone who's been profiled in Vanity Fair, Katyal may not even be interested in becoming one of the brethren, but his age certainly makes him a compelling candidate. At least he's young enough to outlast Clarence Thomas.

This is an interesting thought. Hillary as an SCJ as a consolation prize to bowing out gracefully now...

I have always been interested in the SCJ confirmation process, and never really thought about the idea of lower age being better for the party. It's an interesting take.

I don't know what to think or expect if Hillary is a SCJ... her NY Senate voting has been very different than what I expected when she first was elected. I don't disdain her as much as I did when she first was in office. Her voting record has been less offensive to me and more in line with my own ideology than the liberal Democrats.