April 12, 2010

''I heard Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's name today and that would be an interesting person in the mix" of possible Supreme Court nominees.

Said Orrin Hatch.

With every Supreme Court vacancy, there's talk of appointing a politico instead of a judge. (Bill Clinton wanted to do it, but somehow just couldn't.) The notion always seems to be that a politician would be good at playing politics wrangling votes within the Court. But I have 2 questions:

1. Why would someone who could herd other politicians be good at manipulating Supreme Court Justices?

2. When did Hillary Clinton ever demonstrate that she could wrangle votes?

That said...

1. Barack Obama might enjoy removing Hillary Clinton from the political sphere.

2. It would be harrowing to run the Secretary of State through the judicial confirmation wringer.

UPDATE: Apparently not.

106 comments:

ColorOpt said...

i'm at a loss

Pogo said...

Since the Constitution is whatever the Democrats want it to be, we should just skip the "judicial confirmation wringer" altogether.

I'm sure it's in the living Constitution anyway, right next to the place where the feds can force us to buy health care.

Peter V. Bella said...

Harriet Meirs all over again? Obama is Bush II?

Joaquin said...

I don't see it.
It was 'reported' that she was bored with the Senate. Imagine what serving on the Court would be like?
Plus, she looks horrible in black!

Scott M said...

The feeling I get from my more left-leaning friends, especially amongst the buyer's remorse crowd, is that she needs to resign as the SoS right after the nearly inevitable 2010 GOP landslide and start an insurgent run at the Democratic primary for 2012. Missouri being one of the states that has open primary voting (possibly the dumbest thing in electoral policies, no matter the state), I'd vote for her this time. And that's coming from someone with an admitted deep dislike for the woman.

I know people like Bill Maher like to paint her as a centrist, but he's obviously not read any of her books. Honestly, when I hear someone say something like that about either Clinton, I try to remind them that Bill had to govern from the center to get anything done because of what happened to Congress in 1994.

AllenS said...

All you have to do is take a look at the brilliant job she did at the Rose Law firm for an indication of her judicial temperament.

Almost Ali said...

I'm still going with Stupak. Largely based on Obama hitting back twice as hard.

Still, I'm in the dark about Michelle's choice, which may be the key to her husband's decision.

Clipper said...

HRC on Supreme Court ???? Read IMPRIMIS (Hillsdale College newsletter) March 2010....

He points out very well that the Constitution sets up the Executive and Legislative branches to be political, and the Judicial intentionally without political power. HRC would attempt to politicize it .... without success... she's a horrible choice. No sign of jurist temperament.

Beldar said...

She would add diversity: First Supreme Court Justice to have flunked the District of Columbia bar exam.

Hoosier Daddy said...

she needs to resign as the SoS right after the nearly inevitable 2010 GOP landslide and start an insurgent run at the Democratic primary for 2012.

I want her to run against Obama for the sole purpose of seeing garage mahal explode right here on Althouse.

:-)

Sheepman said...

Has HRC demonstrated that she has the legal mind to be on the court? How does she stack up against previous politicians that went to the court, like Warren and Taft?

Hoosier Daddy said...

First Supreme Court Justice to have flunked the District of Columbia bar exam.

I didn't know that. I was always told she was like, the most smartest brilliant woman in this universe.

jimbino said...

What we need is anybody but a lawyer and somebody with erudition in science, math and economics.

How about David Friedman, who qualifies on all counts?

Lincolntf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

Why comment on an un-named source from a Republican?

traditionalguy said...

This won't happen. Obama hates her and it has no political upside for him. Hillary and friends are sending out these stories. Obama needs to send a black nominee to get the GOP to re-energise his racist meme that got him elected in the first place. That would turn the Confirmation hearings back into win or don't lose event for the Democrats.

Scott M said...

Are any of the current justices, or leading candidates for Stevens' seat, NOT from an Ivy League law school?

If that's so, how's about the President embrace some of that diversity his party seems to love?

The Drill SGT said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
I didn't know that. I was always told she was like, the most smartest brilliant woman in this universe.


Overconfidence? Strange... That has never afflicted the political elites before.

The Drill SGT said...

Scott M said...
Are any of the current justices, or leading candidates for Stevens' seat, NOT from an Ivy League law school?


Diane Wood....

BA and JD from U of Texas

though she taught at U of Chicago along with Kagan, but long after Scalia left

El Pollo Real said...

It'll take a pillage to get her confirmed.

Hagar said...

So, we would finally get an accounting of how the Clintons went from 0 net worth to controlling $1 billion+/- ?

In your dreams, baby!

american girl in italy said...

traditionalguy said...
This won't happen. Obama hates her and it has no political upside for him.

If Hillary is considering pulling a Ted Kennedy, and decides to run against Obama (Jimmy Carter #2) in 2012, Obama would have a big reason to take her out of the equation, by placing her on the SCOTUS.

Scott M said...

If Hillary is considering pulling a Ted Kennedy, and decides to run against Obama (Jimmy Carter #2) in 2012, Obama would have a big reason to take her out of the equation, by placing her on the SCOTUS.

At this point, nothing surprises me anymore. If she did this, she would have a SCOTUS appointment to take care of as her first order of business as POTUS. I don't believe the Clintons would see that as a negative. Assuming she won, she would have ample post-election capital (theoretically) to push through a hard-left type. Unlikely, but so was Scott Brown.

AllenS said...

Remembering back to the Democratic primaries, I was surprised by the number of Democrats that hated Hillary. I don't think that this would go over very well, not just with Republicans, but with a lot of Democrats.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I know that many political hacks....I mean our political leaders, have some law training. But have they really ever exercised their training. Sat on the Bench as a Judge of any kind? Tried a case in court? Really kept up with the practice of law? The answer is NO.

Yet, there is talk of putting someone on the Supreme Court of the United States who is completely unqualified for the job?

Well, Hell......let's just put my husband on the Supreme Court. He is just as unqualified as Hillary. Better yet. Let's take Buckley's advice and just pick someone out of the phone book. That random person would probably have better common sense than all of the political hacks that they want to suggest for that position.

We are soooooo screwed.

victoria said...

Not like harriet Meirs at all. Hillary, eventhough I don't care for her, is much more qualified than Meirs ever was. Bad idea, though. Eisenhower tried to appoint politico's and totally regretted it.


Vicki from Pasadena

Fred4Pres said...

Bill Clinton would be a more interesting choice. But my guess Obama does not want the excitement.

I hope Obama goes Janet Napolitano (she is a protestant) but I expect Diane Wood.

Rick Moore said...

There could be a number of reasons why Obama would want to choose Hillary: http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2010/04/hillary-to-scotus.html

Fred4Pres said...

I suggest Janet as a lesser of evils. I am not a big fan, but if she acts on the court how she has acted at DHS, well it is a win for conservatives.

gary myers said...

Would not the nomination of Sec. Clinton invite a second round of argument about her eligibility under the Ineligibility Clause and the vitality of a second Saxbe fix? The term of her Senate seat that she left for the Sec. of State position will not expire until 2012.

Quayle said...

I'm still waiting for Hill's explanation - the inside details - of how she earned $300K in profits in a few months of trading in pork bellies and other commodities.

And she apparently only did it that one time.

american girl in italy said...

Rick Moore said...
There could be a number of reasons why Obama would want to choose Hillary:

I agree with your post, although, a lot of Hillary supporters, me included, have become so completely disillusioned with the Dem party and have left the party for good. So, while she had many die hard supporters, her support of Obama, and the Dems being revealed for the frauds they are, it won't be an easy ride to get her supporters back, if they come back at all.

If she ran in 2012 I would be tempted to support her for actually challenging him, but I am still so completely fed up with the Dems overall, I shutter to even consider voting for one.

Big Mike said...

There is precedent, of course. Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase to be Chief Justice mainly to get Chase out of his hair (though Lincoln had accepted Chase's resignation from his cabinet well before the appointment).

Of course Chase was replacing Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott Decision, so Lincoln may have figured that Chase couldn't be a whole lot worse.

JAL said...

I can't imagine. The work , even with all the clerks running around for you, has gone to be tedious to anybody excet a law wonk.

Somehow (I have NO idea where this idea comes from) I just cannot imagine Hillary sitting there grinding away at some obtuse turn of phrase and where the commas are.

She would still be mulling over what the definition of the word "is" is.

Scott M said...

@american girl

As a fan of HRC, how did you reconcile her "mispeaking" about sniper fire? How about any of the other of a mountain of "mispeaking" by HRC?

She's deplorable.

Sheepman said...

If Hillary is considering pulling a Ted Kennedy, and decides to run against Obama (Jimmy Carter #2) in 2012,

Don't think that is a factor. Unlike Ted Kennedy, HRC is in Obama's cabinet. She'd have to leave well before 2012 and have an issue that caused her to leave. Hard to do when she is continually supporting BO.


I can't see any upside for BO in appointing HRC. However, he might leak her name on a short list, like he did for the VP selection, to stroke her ego.

al said...

Maybe someone would ask Hillary what her definition of "is" is?

rdkraus said...

Wait, isn't this one of the "old white guy" seats. If an old white guy retires, we're supposed to get another old white guy.

Somehow this logic works (for some people) much better when you're talking about the black seat or the hispanic seat.

Me thinks we gots to stop thinking that way. But me stooopid.

AllenS said...

She's a New York Yankees fan. I've seen her with a NYY baseball cap on. So, she's got that going for her. There's probably some sniper bullets through it, which is a plus.

rdkraus said...

I don't know Harriet Miers, but from what I do know, HRC is no Harriet Myers. She is a wonk. Not my kind of wonk, but she might make a good justice - if you agree with her activist point of view (which I think would quickly emerge after she got on the Court).

Will Cate said...

I don't believe for a minute that Hill has given up her desire to become President.

This is a non-story news story. Hatch "heard somebody say that she might be considered" ... blah blah blah. Just like an aide to John Lewis thought he heard some tea-partier say "nigger."

american girl in italy said...

Scott -
As a fan of HRC, how did you reconcile her "mispeaking" about sniper fire?

http://mydd.com/users/alegre/posts/ok-fine-lets-talk-about-misstatements

She got SO much attention over this, but Obama the gaffe master can't go one day without misstating something, but yet he's a genius...?

Sheepman said...
I don't know if she would really run, or get appointed to the bench, just having fun with the rumors that have been circulating.

SteveR said...

She's not an honest person, even by political standards. Not that it matters, but it should.

american girl in italy said...

Sheepman said...
Hard to do when she is continually supporting BO.

Didn't Hill just contradict Obama on the nukes, saying all best are off in the event of bio warfare attacks? (Something like that?) Maybe she's setting up her departure. ;O)

Semper said...

Hillary is right where Obama wants her: An ineffective post that has little power and any time she gets close to success, Obama can swoop in as head of state and sabotage/take credit for it.

Giving her a lifetime appointment with real power and the Clinton's famous ability to hold a grudge? Not a chance.

HDHouse said...

Hillary has done a remarkable job as Secretary of State after that fool who was there before...

This is one of the great positions in the world. Why serve on a panel that has Scalia and Thomas on it? That's like working at the local WMCA.

Stan said...

Hillary?! As I recall, one of her lawyers said she was intimately involved in most of the scandals that took several pages for someone in the WH Counsel's office to list (that's legal pad pages, one line per scandal).

If that record of criminality and corruption qualifies a lawyer with no talent and little experience to be a Supreme Court justice, let's just stop the pretense that the Court is about the law and just have elections for the seats.

Kirstin said...

I think that Obama probably would want to appoint someone younger than Hillary, now age 62, for long-term influence on the Court.

Anyway, why the comparisons with Miers? Because she and Hillary are both women?

John said...

How is Hilary more qualified than Harriet Meirs or DBQs husband?

What has she ever done, legally?

She got a job as an associate because her husband was atty general. When he became governor, she got a partnership.

Mostly what she did at Rose was drum up business for actual lawyers. She did very little legal work herself.

She has never sat on a bench, even as a justice of the peace. I am not sure she has even ever tried a case in front of a judge. Her courtroom experience is nil.

Her lawyerly experience is close to nil.

And, what little experience she has is 20 years out of date.

Yeah, Hilary for Supreme. Right.

If she does get nominated I am going to put all my money into Orville Redenbacher. It will be some entertaining summer.

The only thing better would be nominating Bill Clinton to the seat. We have never had a disbarred lawyer on the court before. Now there would be some diversity!

John Henry

A.W. said...

Beldar,

She failed the DC bar exam?

We are talking the same exam that is today considered universally a joke? (not that I am complaining--i like the idea of a low bar to enter the bar and letting market forces take care of the rest)

But to be blunt, i have very little respect for any lawyer who flunks any bar exam, barring some extreme circumstances. I took the VA Bar, generally considered the 3rd toughest in America. Now, obviously you have to take it seriously, but if you do, its not really that hard.

So unless she has a hidden learning disability, or had an auto accident that morning, or something, i have little respect fo her. and if it is verified that the DC bar exam was as easy then as it is now, I would have even less.

As for Hilldog being on the SC, if we were serious about that, i would like to see her try out in the junior varsity for a while first, such as a circuit court or district court position. her first judicial job should not be the SC, just as Obama's first administrative job. But hey, who listened to me on that?

traditionalguy said...

@ American girl in Italy...I think, like Semper who pointed it out, out that Hillary is stuck where she is doing no harm to Obama, but were she to enter the fray of a Confirmation Process she would become the center of attention for two months under GOP attack and then valiantly, tear in the eye, withdraw and announce that she will resume Joan Of Arc's work seeking to retain the Presidency for them Dems from Sarah Palin, since Obama's approval rating can no longer do it.History must be served in Hillary's mind, and the first woman President glitters at her like gold.

Hoosier Daddy said...

She got SO much attention over this, but Obama the gaffe master can't go one day without misstating something, but yet he's a genius...?

She didn't misstate, she out and out lied. There is a difference.

I mean if you're going to tell a fabrication to make yourself look good, at least make one up that can't be easily refuted within 30 seconds.

Trooper York said...

Let’s dissect the latest ravings issued directly form the bowels of the Alzheimer’s Academy that is the brain of hdhouse:

Hillary has done a remarkable job as Secretary of State after that fool who was there before...

No doubt President Obama agrees since he has taken all responsibility from Hillary’s greasy palms and parceled it out to everyone from Biden to Holbrooke to Mitchell to Tinkers to Evers to Chance. She does do a bang up job going to funerals in Who-gives-a-fuck-istan. I wonder if she will be going to Poland or will that be beyond her purview as she is restricted to third world countries.

That's like working at the local WMCA

Deciphering the fevered ravings of this ignorant schmuck is always a chore but he must be referring to the YMCA. Not to be confused with WMCA, which is a local New York Christian Radio station?

The senile brain of hdhouse is a strange and evil place.

John said...

How about Judge Judy?

Seriously.

Christopher Buckley wrote a wonderfully funny book a couple years ago called "Supreme Courtship" where a president who gets 2 emminently qualified nominees turned down for trivial stuff sends up a Judge Judy lookalike for nomination.

She get through and turns out pretty well.

John Henry

Pastafarian said...

Hillary Clinton would be a horrible choice for SCOTUS, but I don't see her lack of legal or judicial credentials to be an important reason.

It's not as though these justices spend their time looking through complex technical aspects of case law in an effort to reach the right decision. They make their decision in a case in about 30 seconds, based on their political opinion. Then they use their legal training to write a legal-sounding justification for their decision.

Please spare me the parsing about "penumbras" and the infinitely elastic commerce clause.

These assholes' role is supposed to be to determine whether a law is constitutional. The whole point to having a constitution was so that we'd have a framework to define our government, which every layman could understand, and which could be changed according to strictly defined rules should circumstances change.

So appoint a layman. Qualifications: Literacy; logic; good character. Ask him how he'd have voted on past decisions, to determine if he understands phrases like "shall not be infringed".

Peter V. Bella said...

Anyway, why the comparisons with Miers? Because she and Hillary are both women?

No because both are unqualified and incompetent for any judicial post.

Scott M said...

@Matt

Yeah, but please note that Bill Clinton didn't start from the center. He started left and then lost the House of Reps so he had to move to the center. Also note that Hillary and Bill very much supported a health care bill that was further left than the one Obama just signed.

That's pretty much exactly what I said. Please point a difference I'm not aware of (it was wee early and pre-coffee).

Do you really want to make the argument that Obama is right of HRC? Anything's possible, as she hasn't had the reins, but take Obama, for instance. As awful as his administration has been thus far, to my certainly conservative and liberty-minded point of view, there's nothing surprising about it if you read the guy's books and paid attention to what he was saying. If HRC can be held to that same vein, I'm note exactly sure which one is more adept at liberty destruction.

The worst example, in my opinion, of HRC's liberal underbelly comes from her own words, in which she advocated putting television screens everywhere people gathered so the best child-raising tips could be beamed at them at all times. Talk about Orwellian...

Trooper York said...

Well hdhouse is very lively today. He is reaching into the upper crust of his fetid Depends to fling feces on several threads today.

I guess it takes the home care attendant longer to get her lottery tickets at the bodega now that New York has Powerball so he can sneak on the internet before she gets back to reattach the restraints.

Pastafarian said...

If we were talking about a position for which you had to have technical training, then why are we discussing conservative and liberal justices, and why do decisions break down on clean party lines so often?

Are there liberal and conservative electricians, and if you hire the wrong one, he'll reverse the black and white wire colors?

And if you think that supreme court decisions are more complex than the work of electricians, well, bullshit. Again, the Constitution was written in plain language that anyone can understand.

edutcher said...

Remember The Hildabeast is a certified (and certifiable, probably) Lefty so committed Saul Alinsky wanted to hire her out of college. It would also get her out of politics in '12 and give her the power after which she's always lusted. So it might get the Arkinsaw crowd off The Zero's neck and put a hard core Alinsky disciple on the bench. Not a lot of downside there for Barry.

Granted, Hilla's use of her tenure at State wouldn't get her much in the primaries or general election (she's been almost as much of an embarrassment as Halo Joe), but I'm sure by then, Mr. Soetaro will be so toxic, anybody will look good to the Demos.

Lincolntf said...

Anyone remember which Clinton era book (maybe by Dick Morris?) detailed Hill's harassment and persecution of the women who'd slept with her husband? It was brutal.

Apparently, whenever she wasn't channeling Eleanor Roosevelt, she was channeling Juno.

scoutt said...

Ahhh, the Hillary hate continues. I start to actually listen and read what conservatives think and am reminded that they are just as mean spirited and shallow as the dems.
I actually stood up against my liberal friends for Sarah Palin. I get into yelling matches with San Francisco liberals about their hateful speech and protests against President Bush and how that was much worse than what the tea party folks are doing. The hypocrisy, misogyny and regurgitation of right wing talking points against Hillary Clinton shocked me out of my blind fealty to the democratic cult. Then I come here and read this sh*t and I'm disgusted with conservative poo flinging.
You all deserve each other.

Scott M said...

@scoutt

There's a difference between legitimate criticisms and overt poo-slinging, as you so adroitly called it. I, for one, would like to see more constructive back and forth 'round these parts, rather than the gotcha posting and pejorative gainsaying of other commentators regardless of their point of view.

Any thread anywhere is probably going to shake out to about the same amount of both valid arguments and poo. The fact that this somehow surprises you hints at either an underlying inconsistency or a stark misunderstanding of the blogosphere.

I admit that my emotional (ie, irrational and instinctive) reaction to HRC has always been negative. The intellectual side and, frankly, her seemingly endless battle with honesty (be it misstatements or "I can't recall-isms) only reinforced that initial hindbrain reaction.

Misogyny's got nothing to do with it and labeling a bunch of us in such a manner is irresponsible at best; intellectually lazy at worst.

scoutt said...

I didn't say the people on this thread were misogynists. I said the behavior in the primaries by my former party was misogynistic.
Every politician has been caught contradicting themselves, forgetting, lying, spinning....whatever.
My god, they have every word recorded. The question is does their less than true or accurate words do damage or protect them from consequences? And in contrast to that, what have they actually achieved that has done some good?
My gripe with both sides and with what I see in this thread is that the knee jerk reaction is to go for the weakness, the flaw and feed like a frenzied mob. The politician in total is not those flaws that haters draw on like crack addicts. Obsessing on the flaws is what keeps the media whoring and the dirty masses distracted and locked in a cage match. I think it is destructive to do it to members of both parties and each other.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Then I come here and read this sh*t and I'm disgusted with conservative poo flinging.

So questioning Hillary's lack of qualifications for the SCOTUS is the equivalent of poo flinging? Maybe when you can point to a conservative comment here that even approaches the tone of the invective spewed over Palin than perhaps you can be taken somewhat seriously.

scoutt said...

And I didn't say that this thread was equivalent to the worst of the Palin hatred but it comes from the same place.
I said that knee jerk reaction is to make snarky, mean remarks that remind me of the shallowness and hypocrisy that I now see on the left.
The picture is painted that Hillary Clinton is stupid and a liar. Does reducing her to that description remind you of how anyone else is treated?

MadisonMan said...

I am glad Orrin Hatch didn't say Sarah Palin.

AllenS said...

I don't believe Hillary is stupid, but she is a liar.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The picture is painted that Hillary Clinton is stupid and a liar. Does reducing her to that description remind you of how anyone else is treated?

Well if the picture fits....

Is she a liar? Well its one thing to exagerrate a bit when putting together your resume but to completely fabricate an event that never took place sounds a lot like a liar to me.

Is she stupid? No but I think the fact that she failed the DC bar exam doesn't exactly count as bonus points for being a qualified pick for the SCOTUS. Not to mention the fact that she has no scholarly legal work to show I'd say she is somewhere between slim and none in the qualifications category. At least based upon previous criteria applied to nominees.

AllenS said...

For the record:

That was Orrin Hatch who floated Hillary's name. He is someone that I think also needs to go.

scoutt said...

Your responses make my point. It is impossible for you to see the entire person.
Fine, I'll go there too.
Bush is an idiot and a liar.
Cheney is an immoral war monger.
Rumsfield is a sadist.
Palin is a bimbo.
Republicans are racists.

There seems to be nowhere to go where people want to break out of this sick tribalism.

“It is time for us to stop talking about right and left,” McKinney told me. “The old political paradigm that serves the interests of the people who put us in this predicament will not be the paradigm that gets us out of this. I am a child of the South. Janet Napolitano tells me I need to be afraid of people who are labeled white supremacists but I was raised around white supremacists. I am not afraid of white supremacists. I am concerned about my own government. The Patriot Act did not come from the white supremacists, it came from the White House and Congress. Citizens United did not come from white supremacists, it came from the Supreme Court. Our problem is a problem of governance. I am willing to reach across traditional barriers that have been skillfully constructed by people who benefit from the way the system is organized."

Michael Hasenstab said...

Hillary has done a remarkable job as Secretary of State after that fool who was there before...

Harold, are you a racist? It sure sounds like it, what with your calling a learned black woman a "fool".

Your marching in civil rights protests back in the day didn't really teach you anything, did it? You believe that it's permissible for a white man to call an accomplished black woman a "fool".

Criticize her specific policies, if you will, that's certainly part of political commentary. But unless you are ready to match your qualifications with hers, then you really are the fool.

She is more accomplished than you could ever hope to be. And in your world of liberality, it's still okay to call her a "fool".

rdkraus said...

MM

Hey, that WAS funny.

traditionalguy said...

Hillary is a fighter, and she needs action to keep up her spirits. That is why Obama has her on lockdown. Putting her in the spotlight is the last thing Obama will do on purpose now. Hillary is shrinking everydayin outer darkness. Like every warrior, Hillary has always considered deception as a tool she uses. But I respect her for her efforts. The Amazing Obama cannot stand any white woman acting more powerful than the Caliph himself.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Your responses make my point. It is impossible for you to see the entire person.

If you can point out the inaccuracy in my response then by all means do so. I'm not judging her as an entire person, I'm judging her based upon her qualifications to sit on the SCOTUS. The fact that she made a completely refutable fabrication to bolster her image and couldn't pass the DC bar exam should end any such aspirations right there.


I think also the snark directed toward Hillary is based upon the simple fact that unlike Palin, she is where she is due to the heavy lifting done by Bill and not from any actual accomplishment on her part. Outside of being the First Lady for 8 years, what can she point to that qualified her to do anything other than pick out colors for the White House? Granted, she was able to convince a majority of New Yorkers that she was deserving of one of their Senate seats but beyond that what else? Did she sponsor or co-sponsor any significant legislation? Just asking cause try as I might nothing comes to mind. Has she done anything of note as SoS other than learning how to spell reset in Russian? Yes this may seem like snark but quite frankly, that’s what someone with so little to bring to the table deserves when being considered for positions that countless others are more qualified for.

Hoosier Daddy said...

And in your world of liberality, it's still okay to call her a "fool".

Oh in the fevered swamp that is the mind of hdhouse, I'm quite certain that he has other words for African Americans who follow the conservative path.

Trooper York said...

You have to forgive hd. Condoleezza Rice resembles his home care attendant and he really hates her.

Trooper York said...

She just threw out his ratty old Che T-shirt and his Alger Hiss autographed butt-plug.

She is just a meanie.

Pogo said...

"She just threw out his ....Alger Hiss autographed butt-plug.

And after just getting the small motor fixed, too.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

scoutt said: "Fine, I'll go there too. Bush is an idiot and a liar.
Cheney is an immoral war monger.
Rumsfield is a sadist.
Palin is a bimbo."

Gotta love how they always go for the sexual attack for Palin. Nothing like a misogynist accusing others of being mean-spirited.

- Lyssa

(Yes, I get that you were trying to prove a point and parody others. That doesn't change the fact that you thought of an accomplished woman, and the first negative word that came to your mind was a slightly more family friendly version of "slut".)

Methadras said...

I'm sure Elephant Legs herself will do really well in front of a Senate Confirmation Committee. :rolleyes:

The other question was that Obama would get her out of the political sphere. Really? She is one of the most highly politicized individuals on her and yet her role as Sec. of State has shoved her into a dust bunny corner of obscurity and Obama is to credit for that. He's effectively removed her and dare I say, neutered her from actual political power while throwing her a bone at the same time.

Roger J. said...

Seems to me Senator Hatch is just throwing some shit in the game to stir things up. You think politics might be involved? Nahh, couldnt be. I think Madison Man has the big picture in focus. When the original source is IDed I might pay attention.

"prehyp" Sometimes Word Verification is precient--how do they do that?

joated said...

Nice if it would get her to testify--under oath--about White Water. And how to turn a few thousand dollar investments into hundreds of thousands.

mariner said...

Pastafarian:
Again, the Constitution was written in plain language that anyone can understand.

Yes. It takes law school and years of judicial experience to be able to transmogrify plain words of the Constitution into their opposites.

ken in sc said...

Hillary is more competent than Obama. In my mind that makes her more dangerous. I don’t think she is suited for the court. She would be a better president than Obama, especially in foreign affairs, and about the same in domestic affairs. She is ruthless. I will be very surprised if she does not challenge Obama in 2012.

Big Mike said...

Just to build on what lyssa said, I can't help but note that nearly all of the comments about Hillary Clinton by conservative posters are objective in nature -- Hillary's utterly foolish remarks about landing under (non-existent) sniper, failing the DC bar exam, lack of courtroom experience, etc. Even the "elephant legs" remark, while cruel, is accurate insofar as it points to her ugly ankles. Meanwhile scoutt's characterization of Sarah Palin as a bimbo -- pretty but brainless -- is at best subjective and, given how easily she has come to be Obama's nemesis while holding no office or official Republican standing of her own, very inaccurate.

And that's the difference, scoutt.

Matt said...

Scott M

Obama...liberty destruction

Ha! Oh please! Spare me the overwrought alarm. Your guns are quite safe - as is any liberty you had from 2000 to 2008.

Of course, Mr Bush signed this thing called The Patriot Act, which you would think would be rather a nuisance for you liberty seekers. But a right to privacy is not really important to Conservatives - or so many of them told me at the time. Maybe now that Obama is president they suddenly have decided to fear for their privacy. You know an 'evil' census worker might dare to come and ask how many people live in an area. That's never happened before....

Anyway, yeah, I'm saying Obama is somewhat to the right of where I think Hillary would be if she were President. Most on the Left will tell you that. [But maybe that is wishful thinking] Even this health care bill is to the right of the one Nixon proposed. Yes, indeed.

But the right wing keeps moving the goal posts to the point that if people support Public Libraries they are now called socialist.

AlphaLiberal said...

Orrin Hatch when supporting Harriet Miers for Supreme Court:

' "A lot of my fellow conservatives are concerned, but they don't know her as I do," said Hatch, a former Judiciary Committee chairman. "She's going to basically do what the president thinks she should, and that is be a strict constructionist." Hatch said he already has decided to support her confirmation. "I don't need any more. I know her really well. And I intend to support her." '

Uh huh. Minority Republicans will still demand the power to decide the next Supreme Court Justice.

Sore losers.

AlphaLiberal said...

Scott M:
...after the nearly inevitable 2010 GOP landslide... .

Count chickens before they hatch much?

You guys are going to take power by promising to take the nation back to the glory days of Bush-Cheney?

And repealing health care reform?

Happy to see you give it a try!

Cedarford said...

First Supreme Court Justice to have flunked the District of Columbia bar exam.

Hoosier Daddy said...
"I didn't know that. I was always told she was like, the most smartest brilliant woman in this universe."

I believe a feminist group proclaimed her "one of the 100 most brilliant lawyers in the country". True she failed the DC Bar exam and went to Arkansas where most of her positions came from people doing favors for her based on her husband's position.

Asked their basis for this proclaimation of Hillary as among the 100 best lawyers in the country, the evidence...the feminist group said "it may not be true, but we wish it was."

No, they were not the feminist group that made up the story that another woman is violently assaulted every second the Superbowl is played. "We made that up to make a point about violent sports increasing proclivities towards domestic violence".

They were back at it of course expressing their Shock! and Outrage! that the Superbowl aired an ad showing Tim Tebow pretending to tackle his mom.

So far, a few feminist groups are still insisting that women almost never lie about being raped, to the police. And that when a liar is found, even one that sent someone to prison or got a financial quid pro quo to drop charges --- that such women not be prosecuted - because it would deter many brave women from coming forth.

Feminist groups!
Hillary!
They belong together.

And frankly, while we can laugh at them, we can also laugh at members of 2 parties that gave us Obama and McCain as the best they could offer.

Scott M said...

Matt

Anyone that continues to believe that criticism of this president is somehow equal to agreement with the last one jumps the shark before they even get the word verification typed in.

I was comparing Hillary to Obama. Obama's administration, thus far, has proven that they are quite willing to coerce people, despite promises that they won't, visa vi the personal mandate. I'm not defending Bush. I left the GOP because of his administration, but please point to a piece of legislation from either Bush's or Clinton that will fine me for NOT DOING ANYTHING. I have a very well-managed HSA. Obamacare will effectively nuke it. HSA's are the ultimate in healthcare personal liberty (also read as personal responsibility), shy of having multiple doctors in the family...which I do, but don't pester.

That particular horse has been beat to death, so I'll not pound it much here. Suffice to say that many of Bush's policies were certainly dubious in the realm of liberty, but, just off the top of my head, they also tried to allow people to opt out of the coercive social security system. That tends to balance things just a tad, in my book.

Saying something as intellectually bankrupt as "a right to privacy is not really important to conservatives" (hint, I'm not aware there's a big C there, or was that Freudian slip on your part?) pretty much gets you over the shark tank and lands you solid on the other ramp.

Also equating some whacko that's afraid of the census to the entire swath of conservative thought is likewise sharkjumpalicious.

You need to select a much smaller brush when you paint those you don't agree with. Otherwise your comments come across as so much badly painted sheet rock.

One final note. All of this makes very big assumptions about a Presidential HRC. There's every reason to believe she would have continued the same programs as President Obama decided to keep, much to the chagrin of their leftmost supporters. "Needs must while the devil drives", and all that... I'll even go so far and assume HRC wouldn't have made so many of the absolute amateur hour mistakes this administration has made so far, each time ratcheting down the expectations that our government is in the best of hands with people that want the best for our country and it's citizens.

Scott M said...

You guys are going to take power by promising to take the nation back to the glory days of Bush-Cheney?

You should know by know I don't have many positive things to say about the previous 8 years. Why bring this up? It's a non-issue. No decent practitioner of political arts would even attempt such a thing, and you well know it, so you're apparently just blowing end-of-the-day steam for steam's sake.

Barring something truly jolting to our society, the dems are in deep poo this fall.

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't see her getting the nomination, despite being a Protestant and a woman, for one reason - her record.

I think that it was Dick Morris who pointed out that when there was a Clinton scandal, and it involved sex, it was Bill's, but if it involved money or misuse of power, it was hers (and that really includes all those last minute pardons of his too).

If we go back to her commodity trading, Rose Law Firm billing, S&L, Whitewater, and then go up through her election to the Senate, there are nearing a dozen scandals to investigate. Sure, the statute of limitations has run for them, but we are talking a life-time appointment, and all these scandals have one thing in common - they go to her honesty.

So, from an Obama point of view, with control of Congress at issue, I don't think that they want the summer spent hashing out again all those Clinton scandals, again, before the American people, right before the upcoming election. Not only would it make the Culture of Corruption claim by Pelosi, et al. so obviously a lie, but it would also highlight why George W. Bush was preferable to the Democrats on either side of him. Not the way to go in an election year.

traditionalguy said...

"The White House" just put out what was erupting into a we want Hillary story ghost written by Hillary herself. Silly Hillary!

Beldar said...

I do not know her, but I was at UT-Austin and then Texas Law School about 3-4 years after Diane Wood. I would add re her academic credentials:

Her undergraduate degree is from the Plan II Honors Program, which since 1935 has been offering top students small classes with tenured star professors -- UT's IMHO successful attempt to offer up an "Ivy League-quality education" at state-school prices. The "special honors" tag indicates that within the honors program, she completed a senior-year self-directed project roughly comparable to a master's thesis. The "highest honors" tag, in turn, indicates a GPA in the top 5% of those receiving bachelor's degrees at the flagship campus in Austin (pre-grade inflation).

At Texas Law School, she published two signed student articles (denominated as "notes," but broader than mere case-notes in some other law reviews) in the Texas Law Review. (Publishing more than one is pretty rare.) She also served as a Notes & Comments Editor for the TLR, which was a substantive, non-political and non-ceremonial job directing younger law review members as they chose and researched their own student notes, and then editing the resulting product. Academically, the "highest honors" degree tag again indicates top 5% among all JDs at graduation. Coif, of course. She was the Vice Chancellor of the Chancellors Society for Spring 1974-1975, an entirely ceremonial position from which, however, one can infer with absolute confidence that she had the second-highest law school GPA in her class through the end of her second-year. Justice Blackmun, for whom she clerked in 1976-1977, is of course well known to us all, but the late Judge Irving Goldberg of the Fifth Circuit was one of the "Unlikely Heroes" of desegregation and one of the few Fifth Circuit judges at that time whose clerks went on to SCOTUS clerkships with some frequency.

She did pass the Texas Bar Exam. (I don't know whether she was admitted to others, later in her career, based on test results or reciprocity.)

I'd leave it to others to evaluate her short career in government service, private practice, and academics before she was appointed to the Seventh Circuit. But I can confirm that in terms of academic credentials, Judge Wood did about as well as anyone being educated in Texas can do.

WV: "troopy," that's trippy.

Cedarford said...

Hoosier - "Is she stupid? No but I think the fact that she failed the DC bar exam doesn't exactly count as bonus points for being a qualified pick for the SCOTUS. Not to mention the fact that she has no scholarly legal work to show I'd say she is somewhere between slim and none in the qualifications category. At least based upon previous criteria applied to nominees."

The pity of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon was that without their scandals, a good case could have been made by their supporters for a post-Presidency seat on the Court. As centrist moderates with impressive legal credentials and knowledge of how decisions impact broader society. That was not to be. Nixon lived 20 years after he left the Presidency. Heart issues nonwithstanding, Bill Clinton SHOULD be around at least that long.
Kind of a waste, for those that believe we need more than just Justices who are legal wonks living a life 100% in the legal community that came from Sanford, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. That another Taft would be good.

Hillary though? No.

Bruce Hayden said...

I too have qualms about anyone who flunked a state bar, and especially the D.C. bar at that time. Of course, not all bars are created equal - typically the patent bar has had somewhere around a 1/3 pass rate. But, I have a 3/0 bar pass record (CO, AZ, USPTO), and instinctively look down on anyone who has failed one.

On the one hand though, I do know several people who just froze up, or something. One friend of the family was Law Review, and failed her first time. And, remember that JFK, Jr. failed twice, due supposedly to his social life, and only passed on his third try under threat of losing his DA office job.

On the other hand, sometimes it is because they just didn't work hard enough preparing for the bar. And this may be what happened to Hillary, not taking the D.C. bar seriously enough, and not putting in the time and work required. After all, she had graduated from YLS, and was, by definition, that much smarter than the rest of the applicants.

It usually takes maybe a six week commitment to pass a bar. You attend prep classes, review your notes, and take practice tests during that time. Not too bad when you are just out of law school, but much harder to do when you have been out practicing for awhile (I took the AZ bar about a decade out of law school. I worked full time, then attended prep classes every evening. It wasn't pleasant, esp. in the Phoenix summer heat).

Bruce Hayden said...

The pity of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon was that without their scandals, a good case could have been made by their supporters for a post-Presidency seat on the Court. As centrist moderates with impressive legal credentials and knowledge of how decisions impact broader society. That was not to be. Nixon lived 20 years after he left the Presidency. Heart issues nonwithstanding, Bill Clinton SHOULD be around at least that long.

I always found it interesting that these two were probably the smartest two Presidents of the last 50+ years, yet were both flawed, and ultimately shamed and discredited by those flaws. Both, I think, were bright enough for the Supreme Court, just not honest enough.

Beldar said...

HRC took, and passed, the Arkansas bar exam the same summer she flunked the D.C. bar. My guess is that she took a bar preparation course for the Arkansas bar, because coming from Yale and its national and theoretical curriculum (as opposed to local and practical) curriculum, she'd need to learn a great many specifics unique to that state.

Flunking one bar exam, once, doesn't mean someone's stupid. Maybe she had the stomach flu (although if there were extenuating circumstances, they weren't in her autobiography along with HRC's self-disclosure of that disappointing test result). But it's a data point, and a non-trivial one for senate confirmation for a SCOTUS seat even though it's mostly irrelevant to her current SecState job.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

I guess we know who the Mormons would put on the Supreme Court ... people like Hillary Clinton who, apparently, they approve of.

This can't be good news for Mitt Romney's campaign, now that this cat is out of the bag.

garage mahal said...

Barring something truly jolting to our society, the dems are in deep poo this fall.

Agree, if Republicans don't take at least the House, if not the Senate too, it would absolute disaster for them.

Matt said...

Scott M

Sorry to hear your HSA will be 'nuked'. But on the other hand a lot of businesses will benefit from the changes the changes including the [mid size] company I work for.
I agree that the health plan 'forces' people to buy health insurance if they don't have it. But how many people over the age of 27 [or 30] choose to be without health coverage? Especially if they are married and have children. I mean, yeah, there are some but it's mainly because they cannot afford it or they have a pre-existing condition and can't get it. This plan hopefully will help make it affordable and get rid of the pre-existing condition prerequisite.

Agreed about the 'paint brush' but - seriously - I commented on a few right wing blogs when the Patriot Act passed and not a one of them thought privacy was an issue. Their attitude was that if it wasn't explicitly in the Constitution then it wasn't worth considering. And who needs privacy, etc, etc. But I knew they were full of b.s. because people usually care about privacy. However, they choose to care more or care less about it depending on who is the President. And, admit it, since Obama became President a whole lot of conservatives have suddenly taken positions against the Executive Branch that they didn't when Bush was president for the same policies.

I sometime capitalize conservative and liberal to emphasize a political point of view. It's not in the Chicago Style Manual but who cares.

damikesc said...

Matt, I noticed your concern over Bush having the PATRIOT Act passed...but show no concerns that Obama had it renewed, basically unchanged.

AllenS said...

Hillary is all talk and no cigar. If you know what I mean.

AllenS said...

And when Bill said those famous words: "can I have my cigar back, I think I want to smoke it" he wasn't talking to Hillary.

Bruce Hayden said...

Sorry to hear your HSA will be 'nuked'. But on the other hand a lot of businesses will benefit from the changes the changes including the [mid size] company I work for.

Interestingly, Health Care "Reform" seems to be eliminating precisely those things that have been most effective at bending the cost curve down.

I agree that the health plan 'forces' people to buy health insurance if they don't have it. But how many people over the age of 27 [or 30] choose to be without health coverage? Especially if they are married and have children. I mean, yeah, there are some but it's mainly because they cannot afford it or they have a pre-existing condition and can't get it. This plan hopefully will help make it affordable and get rid of the pre-existing condition prerequisite.

I don't see why you would naively believe that HCR might possibly bring costs down or make insurance more affordable, and in particular, to those in their 20s or so. Wherever community ratings have been tried, and wherever underwriting for pre-existing conditions is banned, premiums have sky rocketed. Of course, it is remotely possible that this won't happen this time.

I would agree that people with families are more likely to have health insurance. The problem here is that those in their twenties or so without families are going to be supporting everyone else. They incur maybe 1/6 the health care costs of someone nearing 60, but the companies will apparently only be able to charge 3 times as much, based on age.

And the moral risk from eliminating pre-existing conditions inevitably leads to healthy people dropping their health insurance, since they can get insurance after they are already sick or injured. This is typically even a bigger cost driver than the age rating. Of course, the recently enacted legislation has fines for not carrying health insurance (of dubious Constitutionality), but are they sufficient? Right now, it looks unlikely.

No, there really isn't any reason to believe that ObamaCare would reduce overall health care costs, but rather, it is likely to drive up at least insurance costs. Unless of course, care is rationed by those dreaded "Death Panels" (I know, in deference to Mrs. Palin, they have to be called something else).

degree said...

t was preeti good site then other when i visited last month
and got good information about part time job


part time job