Comments on: The Next Supreme Court Justice?

By: Dagmar A. Climo

Dagmar A. Climo — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:42:17 +0000

In the event that Senator Hillary Clinton is elected President and former President Clinton is appointed to the Supreme Court, then this American citizen (non-actor) will seriously contemplate moving to France. On second thought, that may not be far enough way — perhaps Mars barring asteroid.

By: Bill Johnson

Bill Johnson — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:51:17 +0000

It’s also unlikely for reasons you didn’t mention:

1) As a federal officeholder, Mr. Justice Clinton would be bound by federal ethics laws. No more six-figure speeches.

2) In addition to sacrificing the speech income, he’d also forfeit his Presidential pension (tagged to a Cabinet member’s salary of $191300) in exchange for a judicial salary of $203,000. Effectively, he’d only be “making” $11,700.

By: Joe Richer

Joe Richer — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 02:29:23 +0000

I agree that Bill Clinton has no chance, but I like Kmiec’s outside the box thinking. It might be healthy to have a nontraditional justice, someone like Earl Warren, who brings a real world perspective to the Court. Monica Lewinksky destroyed the Clinton judgeship. How about Mario Cuomo?

By: Daniel Evans

Daniel Evans — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:17:54 +0000

Correction- Diane Sykes sits on the 7th circuit.

By: Daniel Evans

Daniel Evans — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:12:22 +0000

If a Republican wins the White House in ’08 then I think Diane Sykes(6th circuit) will be the first to be nominated.

She is proving herself to have a conservative jurisprudence.

By: James N. Markels

James N. Markels — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:12:53 +0000

No. A Supreme Court justice does not even have to have a law degree.

By: Edward Chikofsky

Edward Chikofsky — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:35:16 +0000

Do you really think that Hillary would appoint a former (impeached) President who has been disbarred by the very Court to which he would be appointed? (Shades of Alcee Hastings!) Can you just imagine the confirmation hearings? Methinks Professor Kmiec and his fellow-Hitler Youth in the Federalist Society would like nothing better than some red meat to dangle in front of the wing nuts of the Far Right. I give this zero chance.

By: James Miller

James Miller — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:00:03 +0000

Was not President Clinton’s bar membership revoked when he was impeached? And would that not preclude his appointment to the Supreme Court?

By: Jorgen Aimite

Jorgen Aimite — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:25:30 +0000

Correction!!!!
I meant “In any event, and not “Inany ebvent”!!!!

By: Jorgen Aimite

Jorgen Aimite — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:22:51 +0000

Everyone is speculating about the Supreme Court. How well respected is Bill Clinton to seat in the Supreme Court when he lied under oath? He was “acquitted” of impeachment on technicalities. In any event, Hillary would not risk committing that political mistake as a president.

Why would not Hillary Clinton appoint those “African-American” ladies who are already judges of their States’ Supreme Courts, but would Obama do? Obama cannot win elections counting on African American alone. The chances are that Obama would not necessarily appoint an “African American” judge, because he would be more desinclined to symbolic appointments than a Republican President or other candidate would be. The correct balance can be created without necessarily appointing either African American women or men, or other Women or Hispanics to those posts. If they deserve to be appointed, let them be appointmed for their merits and not for symbolism. In my view Women, Hispanics and “African Americans” have won their rights and deserve the appointments from both Republican and Democrat candidates without the need of symbolism. Suggesting that the candidates that are there were appointed for symbolic reasons, is an affront to their dignity and reveals a blant ignorance of American reality today.

Inany ebvent the issue is nice mental exercise!!!!