It would accomplish so many things that make me happy and piss off so many of the people I detest, so yeah, sign me up.

Although my dream nominee remains Anita Hill.

I felt a great disturbance, as though 18 million voices cried out at once, then were silent.

Aside from the fact that the Senate Hearings will be a brutal rehash of the Ken Starr inquiry and the Peter Paul case and God knows what else, I’d be happy to see it happen. She’s be a fine Justice.

I’ll still think this is an long shot, but I think it’s within the realm of possibility, especially if the village starts chatting incessantly about it. The question is that if this was a trial balloon, why was Hatch picked as the floater? Or was it even not intentional?

I think the main obstacle is that I don’t know if Hillary would have any interest in it.  Has she ever been directly questioned about it?

Aside from the fact that the Senate Hearings will be a brutal rehash of the Ken Starr inquiry and the Peter Paul case and God knows what else

I agree it would be brutal, but it would end up playing to her favor in the long run. I’d guess “Clinton-fatigue” could pretty quickly flip to “CDS-fatigue.”

p.s. Sorry, but the constantly misused CDS label works well here.

Does SoS Clinton have the legal chops for that role? I don’t doubt she’s do a good job, but it seems like most recent SCOTUS nominees have significant experience as judges, government legal counselors, legal philosophy thought leaders in university settings, etc., whereas Clinton’s law experience was a corporate gig decades ago. Seems like that would open up a crap-load of controversy right there.

I don’t think she’d be a trial balloon so much as a stalking horse; nominate her, the GOP goes more batshit insane than usual, then nominate someone just as liberal but less polarizing.

All else being equal I’d be delighted by the nomination, but she’s probably too old to be nominated. And yes, it’s ridiculous that we have to worry about sufficient youth when considering nominees to the country’s highest court.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested this morning that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might be nominated to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court.

Hatch and his fellow idiots would squat on her nomination to the S.C. and Obama’s pick for the new SoS forever and ever, so no thanks. Should get all those people who need a Hillary Hole filled excited, though. I hope he’s had his shots.

then nominate someone just as liberal but less polarizing

Carrot Top?

Carrot Top?

Dice

@Betty—No, she’s not really a Constitutional scholar or experienced jurist, although those are not technically requirements for the post.

The important thing is that she has been willingly subservient and complicit in the Obama agenda, and with no hesitation whatsoever abandoned her base of PUMA supporters in order to further the goals of the Democratic Party establishment. She deserves to be compensated—if not with a post on the SC then perhaps with the Governorship of a tropical administrative territory.

I’d love to see her on the court, but I’d *really* love to see Anita Hill, That would be true justice.

aimai

aimai. Agreed on Anita Hill, if for no other reason than poetic justice. Clinton… not so much.
Maybe I’m just spoiled, but wouldn’t you americans want to get actual leftists on the court. Or, hell, even elected. And don’t get me started on the faux populism of Nader and the like. You’ve moved so far right in the last 30 years that Nixonian policies are now what would be considered “leftist” by american standards. It’s scary.

Hil’s good, but I want Bam to appoint a genuinely liberal 45-year-old who will hold the seat for at least as long as Alito holds his.

This is for keeps. Hil’s in her mid/late 60s.

@HMDK: Getting actual leftists on the Supreme Court would be delightful, but there are two wee obstacles:

1. There are only abt a dozen genuine leftists in all of Congress, maybe, and

2. Obama is himself a centrist. He wouldn’t be appointing leftists even if he didn’t have a lunatic opposition screaming that he’s a toothbrush-mustached country-rapist.

I agree with the general consensus.  Someone liberal about 20 years younger than Hillary.  I don’t actually care about gender or ethnicity as much as I do about having someone willing to stand up to the Alito axis.

I’m available. Jus’ sayin’.

Does SoS Clinton have the legal chops for that role? I don’t doubt she’s do a good job, but it seems like most recent SCOTUS nominees have significant experience as judges, government legal counselors, legal philosophy thought leaders in university settings, etc., whereas Clinton’s law experience was a corporate gig decades ago. Seems like that would open up a crap-load of controversy right there.

Hillary Clinton not on the SC because she’s too old?

Salt, wound, Hillsterics!

Is someone taking aim at the “Hillary Hole” again? I wish they’d just leave Hillary’s hole alone for a while.

The question is that if this was a trial balloon, why was Hatch picked as the floater? Or was it even not intentional?

If it was intentional I can see it being a ploy to get the nomination through quickly as Hatch still has much influence to get it done.  Nicely done if that is the case.

I’m all on board with HRC on the SC.  Too old?  Pshaw…  If her health and stays good, she could do nearly 30 years.  JP Stevens is retiring at 90.

You’re all a bunch of ageist hacks IMHO. :-)

Love from San Francisco, gimme.

According to Politico [insert customary truck-load of salt here], the White House sez HRC on the SCOTUS isn’t gonna happen. They’ve named a source, so that’s probably accurate.

I lived through so many political denials over the years, sourced or not, that I don’t know if it means much to me.  Hell, you could argue that the fact that they came out that quick to deny it means that there’s something there.

That said, the age factor, which I didn’t address earlier, is a huge one. That almost instantly disqualifies her.  Almost.

BTW, I haven’t had a lot of time to follow the speculation over possible picks.  Who are the youngest of the short-listers?

Elena Kagan is about 6 months younger than me - will be 50 later this month. Diane Wood is 56 and the dude Merrick Garland is 58.  Hilary is 62, I think.

Forgive any typos.  I’m doing this from Bberry.

Hillary Clinton not on the SC because she’s too old?

Salt,wound, Hillsterics!

Too old and has that cackle.  Too, cankles.  Also.

As for Hatch, he’s got no inside information at all.  He’s just being a troublemaker.

To be fair, as best I can tell Hatch’s “I heard CLinton mentioned” line refers to Ezra’s post advocating a politician from the Court. I don’t think there’s any legitimate speculation that the White House is considering appointing her to the Court, or that she would even want such a gig.

Hatch liked Hariet Miers too, say take it for what it’s worth.

And Hitler, Hatch loved him some Hitler as well, so take that for what it’s worth.

Oh, and Clooney’s “The Good German” sucked.

I’m not sure I see Hillary leaving SoS this early.  Maybe as a replacement for Ginsburg but not now.

Apparently, a former GA Supreme Court Justice, is rumored to be in the running.  That could be interesting.

Disregarding the fact that the WH says HRC is not in the pool, I don’t think a confirmation hearing for her would be that contentious. She made a lot of Republican friends in the Senate just by being collegial and I think that still matters somewhat. At the very least, they wouldn’t leverage all of their hate for Bill at her personally.

If she’s nominated,confirmed and takes here place on the court, could she wear a different color robe?  You know, so she can send out secret messages to the Confluence?  How will they know what to do if she wears black every day?