Would Bill Clinton make a good Supreme Court justice?

[The_Professor]

What do YOU think?

[fatman]

I don't think so, especially since he's disbarred.  A Supreme Court Justice (SCJ) should have, in my mind, the experience of sitting as a jurist for at least some time.  If not that, then at least have some sort of work history within the legal system.  While there have been some politicians elevated to the Supreme Court (Earl Warren comes to mind), I don't think that it's necessarily wise to appoint someone to the SC who has no judicial experience.

[The_Professor]

A rumor is circulating sround the DNC that this is a possibility if Hillary becomes President. This is why I asked.

[fatman]

Personally, I kind of doubt it.  A lot of people (myself included) would see it as a blatant act of nepotism, and I think that it would have a hard time passing confirmation.

[Stray Pooch]

Tell ya what, I don't know if she would put Bill on the SCOTUS (though a President as SCJ is not unprecedented) but I have another thought to throw at you.

If the Dems win the White House and have clear Senate and House majorities, the only thing that stands between them and every left-wing dream (like abolishing gun rights, instituting the badly misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" and giving Unions the right to control labor votes by intimidation) will be the right-leaning SCOTUS.  I am willing to bet that if Hillary is stymied by the SCOTUS on a vote, she will take a page out of FDR's book and push to expand the size of the SCOTUS and load it up with Liberals.  She may even do it anyway, just to stack a court so strongly that liberal causes will be insured to sail through the courts for ages.

There's yer conservative nightmare for ya.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would be surprised if anyone were to nominate Clinton for the Supreme Court.
He's LOTS smarter than Thomas, the current sloth and dullard of SCOTUS.
He's nicer than Alito and lots nicer than Scalia.

[Michael Tee]

Fatman nailed it on his first swing.  You are NEVER going to get a disbarred lawyer on the Supreme Court.  That's NEVER as in N-E-V-E-R.  Fuhgeddabowdit.

[The_Professor]

Tell ya what, I don't know if she would put Bill on the SCOTUS (though a President as SCJ is not unprecedented) but I have another thought to throw at you.

If the Dems win the White House and have clear Senate and House majorities, the only thing that stands between them and every left-wing dream (like abolishing gun rights, instituting the badly misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" and giving Unions the right to control labor votes by intimidation) will be the right-leaning SCOTUS.  I am willing to bet that if Hillary is stymied by the SCOTUS on a vote, she will take a page out of FDR's book and push to expand the size of the SCOTUS and load it up with Liberals.  She may even do it anyway, just to stack a court so strongly that liberal causes will be insured to sail through the courts for ages.

There's yer conservative nightmare for ya.

I concur with this nightmare scenario, which is why I am NOT for her Presidency, even though I believe it will happen.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I agree. Bill Clinton will never be nominated for the Supremes. This is a totally moot point, of the sort that Giulani might raise were he not so obsessed with 9-11.

He really needs a new tune. Hearing Giulani is like visiting Disney World and hearing "It's a Small World" for the 345th time.

[Michael Tee]

<<I am willing to bet that if Hillary is stymied by the SCOTUS on a vote, she will take a page out of FDR's book and push to expand the size of the SCOTUS and load it up with Liberals. >>

That's ludicrous.  Even FDR couldn't get away with it, and he was a lot more popular as a President than Hillary could ever hope to be.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It appears to me that in utter desperation, the GOP propaganda mill is dredging up every bad decision that the Democrats have made since the times of James Buchanan.

Because what they have is the zombielike images of lame ducks Juniorbush and Cheney looming over them. The two most incompetent dolts ever to disgrace the White House.

Their slogan "We aren't ALL like them, honest!"

[Stray Pooch]

That's ludicrous.  Even FDR couldn't get away with it, and he was a lot more popular as a President than Hillary could ever hope to be.

He didn't get away with it because the mere threat of it caused the GOP to back down.  The size of the Supreme Court has been changed many times in the past.   (There is no Constitutional requirement for the size of the court.) Hillary's popularity has nothing to do with it.  It is whether the Dems (who will be in complete control) are willing to go for broke.  Hillary wants to change the very Constitution by eliminating the electoral college.  That would be a fundamental change in the way this country was designed to be governed.  She isn't afraid to make major changes.  Whether she would propose it is not much of a question.  She would have no problem doing that.  Whether the Dems would go for it, given the possible repercussions among middle-of-the-road voters who already distrust the government, is another question.  But I certainly do NOT rule out the possibility.

[Stray Pooch]

It appears to me that in utter desperation, the GOP propaganda mill is dredging up every bad decision that the Democrats have made since the times of James Buchanan.

Oh come now.  Don't be dissing James Buchanan.  He was one of the two greatest Dem Presidents ever - both of them named Jimmy.  That is, they were such lousy Presidents that they cleared the way for the election of two great Republicans.

[Michael Tee]

<<Hillary's popularity has nothing to do with it.  >>

I beg to differ, it has something to do with it.  However, I should have added that the country and the legislature were not as closely divided as they are now.  FDR had the advantage of much bigger majorities in Congress than Hillary is likely to have.  Popularity was not the only factor that I should have mentioned, and IMHO, not even the biggest factor.

<<The size of the Supreme Court has been changed many times in the past.  >>

Certainly not in the recent past, possibly not even in living memory.  The last ATTEMPT to change it was FDR's and I don't know when the last actual change was made.

[Stray Pooch]

What do YOU think?

It occurs to me that your original question has not been answered - at least by me.  It's actually an interesting question if you take the politics out of it.  When you de-demonize him, Bill Clinton is an extremely intelligent man.  He understands law, and has pretty good analytical skills.  Leaving aside moral and legal issues that would rule him out as a good nominee, I think Clinton would have the ability to be a good SCJ.  Where Bill's own selfish interests are not involved, I think he couldbe objective and give strong consideration to the legal merits of individual cases.  I think the law, politics and history are fascinating subjects to Bill (even more than most politicians).   So I suspect he would have a strong respect for the concept of common law and be able to make dispassionate decisions when faced with thorny issues.  On the other hand, being quite intelligent and analytical, he might well have difficulty making decisions where there is no clear course.  Then the politics would kick in.  That is, however, not unlike many - probably most - Justices who sit or have sat on the court.

As to the cons, I am not certain that he could rise above partisan politics in making final decisions, and I am sure that appointing him to the court while his wife holds the Oval Office would be an extreme conflict of interest.  Finally, given his very high opinion of himself, I am not sure he could play well with the others on the court in conference.  It might be quite difficult for him to negotiate and compromise with others once the weight of his own legal opinion had been soldified.  Bill showed a capacity to adapt in the Oval Office, and maybe he could in the SCOTUS, but the court does not require the sort of give-and-take that the Executive office does.  Congress (controlled by the Republicans for a large part of his Presidency) had the ability to push back hard against him.  Even the Chief Justice would have little power to do so in the SCOTUS.  Clinton clearly has a petulant side, and I could see him digging in his heels and closing his mind when his ego was at stake.

So bottom line is, I think Bill has some potential to be a good SCJ, but I don't see him as ever being nominated or confirmed if he was.  In the long run, that's probably a good thing.  I might well want to read Bill Clinton's opinions on legal decisions or historical issues.  I suspect they would be a good read, but he would be a better pundit than judge.