Justice William Jefferson Clinton Anyone?

[ddeclue]

:shrug:

Following in the Taft model...

He is emminently qualifed as an attorney and especially having served as President.

:patriot:

[WeDidIt]

1. He could never be confirmed.

He was disbarred from the SCOTUS bar.

[ddeclue]

5. That was 8 years ago for 5 years and it doesn't really matter as long as Senate votes to confirm him

there is no other requirement.

Doug D.

[WeDidIt]

20. The length of time does not matter. He's politically inviable

No way could he be confirmed. Not even with 75 Democratic Senators.

[TheDebbieDee]

You don't have to be an attorney to get on the Supreme Court.

[WeDidIt]

19. It's not the attorney part, it's the politics part

No way, no how, will Bill clinton ever be nominated to the SCOTUS.

The disbarment would be played never ending.

[TheDebbieDee]

78. This time last year, a lot of people (myself included) were saying

that a Black man couldn't get elected President of the United States........and looky here!

[MUAD_DIB]

53. Obama needs to pick somebody younger.

Clinton has heart issues. Think long term.


Maybe Chelsea? :shrug:

[karynnj]

62. What qualifications does she have?

She works for a Hedge fund.

Where is her long judicial record.

[MUAD_DIB]

81. I was joking.

[karynnj]

83. Sorry - it wasn't clear especially in a thread pushing

someone known for his political ability, but not his judicial temperament. Who, even among Democrats, is not on the short list of people you would name as having integrity or being moral.

[liberalmuse]

2. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!

You are the winnah!

[L. Coyote]

32. Lied under oath! Forget it!!!

[DURHAM D]

56. You have just shown that you were not really paying attention.

Or, should I say -Thanks for posting the right wing's drivel.

[karynnj]

64. Are you seriously saying either that

1) He didn't lie
2) He wasn't under oath

He answered he was never alone in a room with Lewinsky. (and no I don't buy that it depends on what alone or room means.)

[Raskolnik]

66. Well, he did. That's not really in dispute.

Whether his lies about Monica Lewinsky were sufficient for impeachment, of course, is another matter (of course they weren't), but he did lie under oath.

[Democrats_win]

3. Actually, that may be legally impossible. Wasn't he disbarred?

It's strange that he was punished far worse than pResident W. Torture and Darth Warmonger Chainey.

[ddeclue]

6. Read the Constitution... there is NO requirement that a Federal Judge or Justice even be a licensed

atty.

Strange but true.

And his disbarrment was temporary.

[Democrats_win]

26. Good information. Thanks.

[Xithras]

55. True. Though our history there have been former governors, senators, and even another ex-president.

Taft actually served as Chief Justice many years after he left office as President, so the idea isn't unprecedented. The idea that Supreme Court justices must be judges only popped up in the past few decades, and even then isn't a hard rule. Breyer was a law professor, prosecutor, and lecturer before being nominated.

It could happen, but what would we gain? We'd expend a lot of energy to get him nominated for what? The simple pleasure of watching freeper heads explode? While that would be fun, we (both as a party and a nation) have more important things to deal with.

There are better candidates out there.

[hfojvt]

87. Taft had a law degree and judicial experience

He was far more qualified than Roberts

from Wiki
"Taft graduated from Yale College in 1878, and later graduated from Cincinnati Law School in 1880. After his graduation from Cincinnati Law School, Taft worked in a number of local legal positions until being appointed a judge to the Ohio Superior Court in 1887. Taft was then appointed Solicitor General of the United States in 1890 and a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 1891."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft

Judge for 3 years, Solicitor General for one year, Appeals court judge for 9 years.

[MarjorieG]

4. After impeachment and losing law license?

[ddeclue]

That was temporary and there is no requirement that Judges and Justices have a law license

read the Constitution...

[SteppingRazor]

7. Meh. I'd say no for several reasons.

1) Clinton's doing great work as an ex-president, especially in bringing attention to the plight of the Third World. Why stop that so he can sit on the bench?

2) Clinton may be qualified, but by that test, there are others who are far more so -- people who have judicial experience, for example.

3) While any nomination will be controversial, as the GOP in Congress will likely try to shoot down even the most moderate of choices, picking Clinton is perhaps the least amenable route. It would stir up some of the most obstruction while returning a moderate investment, as Clinton is neither particularly liberal in his judicial philosophy, nor particularly young -- at 63, he would be the oldest Supreme Court nominee in decades.

[Baby Snooks]

25. Here's another reason...

?

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Your third point is the best -

the right would fight him as if he was Karl Marx, and even if he as successfully seated what we would get is another center right jurist, which means EVERYBODY would be unhappy with him.

[trotsky]

8. I say a big ol' NO for just one reason.

He's not young enough! I want a liberal justice who will serve at least 30 years, maybe even 40 or more.

[JVS]

9. He'd get Borked, end of story.

[ddeclue]

12. He's a lot more charming than that asshole Bork.

:P

[JVS]

30. It doesn't matter.

[Taverner]

10. He's not enough of a Civil Libertarian

I want someone who used to head the ACLU

[librechik]

11. I would prefer Al Gore

but I doubt he would do it.

We need Elizabeth De La Vega. Hispanic, woman, experienced prosecutor and itching to go after the torturers!

[lunatica]

15. Wouldn't that be a kick in the neo con's ass!

The irony would be just too delicious!

But I'm pretty sure he's not interested. He's doing his true love life's work.

[blueclown]

16. Umm... how does a Supreme Court justice go after torturers?

You are aware Justices don't create cases out of thin air, right?

[crimsonblue]

77. SCOTUS can do whatever the fuck it wants...

SCOTUS truly has the final word on everything that happens in this country.. If run by a bunch of crazy oligarchs, they could depose the president and institute Friday afternoon floggings for all persons under the age of 18.8.

SCOTUS has the ability to create linen out of whole cloth because there is absolutely no check on their power, save the impeachment powers of Congress.

[Dreamer Tatum]

21. Supreme Court justices don't "go after" people nt

[monmouth]

38. How about John Dean? I love that guy.....oh wait..hmmm, never mind...n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Because he's got such a great track record of good judgement, right?

:rofl:

[HereSince1628]

14. Oh come on. Zip it.

Not. No judicial experience, not a legal scholar.

[ddeclue]

18. He is a licensed attorney, served as Arkansas attorney general twice,

was a law professor at University of Arkansas, served as a two term governor and two term President.

How much more Constitutional experience do you need? He's far more qualified than the so called experts that are going to be named because he's actually lived it.

:crazy:

[Buzz Clik]

34. Do you think being suspended from the Supreme Court bar is important?

[ddeclue]

35. NO... it's old news...really old news..

[Buzz Clik]

37. That is correct. When facing confirmation, a nominee need only worry about what happened last week.

[HereSince1628]

40. I want a LOT more experience thank-you.

I would want his legal decisions (which as of now there are none) to stand up to scrutiny over the years. It's not just having been on the right(left) side of a question. It is about having other legal scholars recognize that the question is answered and answered with some closure so that they aren't perpetually revisited.

[blm]

54. Well, he sided WITH Reagan-Bush on IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning operations - why

would any Democrat in this postBush2 nation want a Supreme Court judge with a track record of siding with secrecy and privilege instead of with the people on matters of open government?

[baldguy]

17. Too old.

We need a strong liberal who'll be there for the next 30 yrs.

[Uzybone]

23. +1

[enough]

44. +2

[sabrina 1]

22. Dennis Kucinich

could be trusted with issues of civil liberties far more than Clinton, imho. Clinton is FOR the failed drug war, eg.

However, I know Kucinich or anyone with his views, which are not even all that 'left', has no chance at all. Just wishing it were possible, that's all.

[closeupready]

24. OMG, no. A thousands times NO.

N/T

[MadBadger]

27. Why not give it to somebody who actually deserves it?

[Buzz Clik]

29. Well, his law license was suspended by Arkansas, and was suspended by the Supreme Court.

I think there are candidates out there with less baggage.

[Democrats_win]

31. I like Clinton, but would he be a problem when it came to helping corporations?

Certainly he is a humanitarian so that's a good thing. However, would he rule in favor of Ford not paying for SUV crashes or some other pro-corporation stand?

[MadHound]

33. Not just no, but hell no

We do not need the man, the drama on the court, not to mention we don't need another corporatista sitting on the bench.

[iamjoy]

36. Nope, Too Old - Too Much Ego

I know, 63 isn't really old, but it's only 7 years younger than Souter. Clarence Thomas was in his 40s when he was put on SCOTUS. Ginsburg was 60. If we want to shape the court and protect America for years to come we need to be a little more like the Republicans in the ones we nominate to the Supreme Court.

Also, considering President Clinton's ego - would he really be content as 1 of 9 rather than just ONE. I like him and all, but he's kind of an attention whore.

On the plus side, he's very smart. He's capable of looking at an issue from more than one side, too. I think these are admirable qualities. And I don't think he'd have a harder time getting past a Republican filibuster than any other Pro-Choice nominee.

But no, I'd rather have some one in their forties. If we are so unfortunate as to have a Republican president in 8 - 16 years, we don't want Clinton deciding to retire.

And if he sticks around a while, it might be a conflict of interest if he is on the Supreme Court when Chelsea runs for office ;-)

[Political Tiger]

39. It would be worth it just to watch the freeper's heads explode! n/t

[Maccagirl]

43. So you enjoy watching a firing squad

as long as you're in the audience. I've had enough Clintondrama for five lifetimes.

[Political Tiger]

47. No....I like watching Freeper's heads explode. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

41. In a word:

NO.

[solara]

42. Please... No

:patriot:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. No thanks. Enough with the DLC liberal when convenient opportunists.

[WI_DEM]

46. NO, wasn't he disbarred or something.

[LostinVA]

49. No

[karynnj]

68. Yes, though re-instated

That is not a badge of honor!

[BurtWorm]

48. Thomas needs an ally on the porn decisions.

:bounce:

[TheCoxwain]

50. Just to Piss the GOP off .. yes ... oh btw

He will be the smartest dude on the bench and will make one heck of a justice.

[merh]

51. And lied under oath

And he is a moderate that is close to the Bushies and the corporate overlords.

Nope, anyone that is stupid enough to get caught telling the lies he told is too stupid for SCOTUS.

Besides, we want someone in their 40's, someone that has a long life ahead of them.

[The_Commonist]

52. No.

I just don't think anything else needs to be said!

[mod mom]

57. * placed too many corporatists on the bench already! NO thanks!!!

[Orsino]

58. The Supreme Court is not a hotel for rock stars.

There are serious jurists and Constitutional scholars to consider first.

[TahitiNut]

59. How about sharing whatever you're smoking?

:smoke:


:eyes:

[tammywammy]

60. No n/t

[karynnj]

61. NO!

He lacks the moral character and integrity. Not to mention he was disbarred, though reinstated, for lying under oath - not good for a Supreme Court Justice.

[Raskolnik]

63. No.

I think it might cut into his jet-setting with billionaire playboys a bit.

[Blue_In_AK]

65. He wouldn't be confirmed in a million years.

Besides, he's too political.

[Zodiak]

67. Isn't he disbarred?

And even if he isn't any more, do we really want a Supreme Court Justice who is NOT progressive and has a history of disbarment?

Forget it. That would just make us look monumentally stupid and waaay to beholden to the cult of personality.

Let Clinton fade away....he is done influencing US policy as far as I am concerned. He's done enough damage.

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. Wash. Rinse for eight years. Repeat.

If after two cycles the stench doesn't disappear, throw the old shoe away.

[bdamomma]

70. nah I don't think so.

Bill is happy what he is doing.

[Bucky]

71. Sure he's qualified. Nominating the SecState's spouse, however, is both iffy & too clubby

He'd be a great addition to the bench, but he's not irreplaceable.

[GDAEx2]

72. No thank you

[crimsonblue]

73. He isn't qualified...

No matter the individual, I don't want a disbarred lawyer on SCOTUS.

[AtomicKitten]

74. His disbarment makes that highly unlikely. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

75. Bad idea for a number of reasons. nt

[jesus_of_suburbia]

76. No. I'd be fine with Hillary, but not Bill. He lied under oath. AND he's too old

I also don't necessarily trust Bill on gay rights issues.

[mnhtnbb]

79. Thanks, but no thanks.

[leftofthedial]

80. we already have too many neocons and bush family cronies on the Court.

[Hekate]

82. No. Heart condition and age. Next suggestion. nt

[frylock]

84. fuck no

[anonymous171]

85. Well, that would be one way to infuriate the RWers.

But he is unfortunately too old. We need to get a liberal 40 year old on the bench.

[Arugula Latte]

86. What if he puts the moves on Ruth Bader Ginsberg?... "Hey, baby, check out my gavel."

"Wanna see what's under my robe?"



;)