Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
It's also possible that I'll be president some day. What's reasonable? Would it be reasonable to believe Hillary (on the off change she accepted a nomination, which is something that probably should be discussed) would—not could—be a justice on par with the aforementioned justices?
|
The circle of life of this thread is complete. From post #2 we've been off the rails (entertainingly so in my book), and here's our derailer finally trying to put it back on track.
Clinton has already demonstrated that she has a talented legal mind. How talented? Well, I'm certainly not qualified to answer that question. I can't even conceive of a ratings scale that would allow an observer to compare such things, let alone actually apply one.
dc, I disagree that she wouldn't be interested. I think she is, namely for the reason that it allows her to stay in power for exactly as long as she wishes. Granted she would be in the third of the three branches (among equals, of course), but the thing about the Court is that the "power structure" there is relatively flat. No one justice is any more important than another, and the Chief's job is really no different than the most junior member's.
Finally - and I hope for the final time - are we ever going to get to discuss why the system of checks and balances is broken or not?