WI: Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton?

In 1993, Bill Clinton had the "sexy" idea of appointing the First Lady, Hillary Clinton, as a Supreme Court Justice. They eventually went with Ruth Bader Ginsburg instead, because as Bill was told by his aides, "safe is better than sexy."

But what if Bill had been willing to face the possible embarrassment of having the First Lady rejected, and Hillary had made it through the Senate vote? Would she try and aim for Chief Justice for her 'promotion,' or would she still have Presidential ambitions? Would she have voted any different than Ginsburg? Personally, I think she would've gone for Chief Justice, but if she got impatient, then she would support Democratic frontrunners in the primaries aiming for an appointment to Attorney General, then a run at the Presidency.
 
I'm pretty sure it would have faced a filibuster. Republicans would decry the pick both as being too radical, as well as being nepotistic. Not sure even Democrats would have liked it or wanted to defend the idea, really.
 

Wallet

Banned
Its too nepotistic. Conservatives would cry frowl and Liberals would have a hard time defending it.

Whats more likely is if Obama appointed Hilalry to the Supreme Court and not Secretary of State. But this ends her presidential career,
 
It's an interesting idea to have an openly political Justice who might leave the bench to run for office. That's not a model we've had in modern US politics, but I don't see why it couldn't happen. The specifics of getting Hillary on the bench are tough, though. You could get over the nepotism angle if her legal career could support the appointment, but it really can't.

So go back and give her a different legal career, one that makes her look like bench material. Then if Bill's career can handle the butterflies, you could make it work.
 

Marc

Donor
The, almost, might of, could of - and I happen to know was actually discussed - would have been to nominate Mario Cuomo to the Supreme Court.

But then, Clinton was never a risk taker when it came to policy and politics.
 

Philip

Donor
I don't know if a filibuster would even be necessary. Outcries of nepotism. Whitewater heating up. Too many comments on political topics during Bill's campaigns. Minimal constitutional law experience leads to a low ABA rating. Democratic senators wouldn't have to their negative vote beyond pointing at that.
 
This couldn’t be something that seems like nepotism so there’s absolutely no way Bill would be able to get her on the court.

You might be able to get her appointed by a different president after Clinton leaves office, but even then she’d need to be MUCH less controversial to get confirmed.
 
It's hard, since it's basically handing the Republicans a turkey shoot. There's a few legitimate reasons to oppose Hillary, let alone the fact that her likely rejection is a big ol' rebuke to President Clinton. The headlines and counter arguments basically write themselves, and could easily get out of hand and deal real damage to Clinton's Presidency. If you want Bill to be a one term President, it's a good idea. Otherwise I'd steer well clear of it.
 
Top