-
sponsorship
Jack and Phil: I find the notion of an easy confirmation for the future Justice Hillary Clinton improbable if not impossible for the reasons Jack suggests: The conservative base cares about the judiciary above all. They’d fight even the next moderate, nerdy, and dull nominee to the death. But a lifelong liberal political activist? An effective dealmaker and horse-trader in the model of Bill Brennan or Sandra Day O’Connor? A Clinton?
And given that modern confirmation hearings have everything to do with overturning ancient trash cans, how long would Sen. Clinton’s hearing stretch on? A month? Three? It would certainly be great fun for the folks who believed the Starr Report was a little too thin on the lurid details ...
-
sponsorship
Jack, thanks for flagging James Andrew Miller's op-ed recommending Hillary Clinton for SCOTUS. I admit it's an intriguing idea, but I think Miller misses the most important argument for Hillary when he writes, "The fact that she hasn't served on a bench before would be inconsequential, considering her experience in law and in government." In fact, Hillary's political experience would be incredibly valuable on the high court. In many ways, she could be an heir to the legacy of Earl Warren and Sandra Day O'Connor, who came to the court after decades of experience in elected and public office. As you note, this used to be quite commonplace, with many justices coming to the court after a career in elected politics. Their experience in the political branches of the government added to their work on the bench and a valuable understanding of how politics actually works.
Will Hillary be next?