What the (*&^%)!!!

Here is a short blurb from the Village Voice talking about what I would consider a nightmare scenario--Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court

The right-wing political community remains haunted by the specter of a "President Hillary Clinton" turning the Patriot Act on their own leaders, marching them off to jail, and throwing the key away.

How to stop her? Condi might do the trick, but she's a little lightweight. Rather than oppose Senator Clinton, some Republican politicians are trying to cozy up. In Texas, The Hotline reports, two Republicans, Rick Perry running for re-election as governor and Kay Bailey Hutchison for the Senate, are beginning to deliberately point out how they have worked with Hillary.

Last weekend Bob Novak described a novel scheme, supposedly emanating from the fevered brain of Karl Rove: Stop Hillary by putting Bill on the Supreme Court.
Here's what's supposed to happen: Bush names either Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia to be chief justice. That leaves one vacancy on the court. Then he appoints Bill Clinton to the court. Oh my God!

The thought of adulterer Clinton on the court (think Monica as clerk) sends right-wingers up the wall. But wait a minute. Think it through: Next, Bill Frist—Senate majority leader, Terri Schiavo defender, and himself a presidential hopeful—immediately moves to hold up Bill's nomination. Next, Harry Reid, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, cuts a deal to free the conservative judicial nominations now backed up in Congress in return for letting Clinton on the court.

Once on the court, Clinton is out of the picture when it comes to campaigning for Hillary or anyone else in 2008. What to do about Hillary? Americans may differ on whether she should be president, but almost everyone will agree that the country could not stand to have two Clintons dominating two branches of government.

As for what Bill might do on the court, one conservative pol opined, "He couldn't be any worse than Souter."

Now let's think through the other side. While there is precedent for naming a former president to the Supreme Court, William Howard Taft was president then became Chief Justice, overseeing, among other things, the construction of the Court's current building, I am not sure the American Bar Association is going to take kindly to a disbarred lawyer being appointed to the Court. For that matter, I am not sure the current members of the Court would like.

Second, Justices are called upon to decide cases dealing with some arcane subjects of law and their training and experience to this point in the careers has led them to the point where they can do that research and scholarly work necessary to make those decisions. Former President Clinton--well he has spent most of his adult life in politics, not devoted to the study of law. This is not to say that I don't think Clinton is smart enough for the job, I do believe he is, but his training is not near the level it should be for being a Supreme Court Justice.

Third, the presence of Clinton on the Court would politicize the Court too much. I am not necessarily talking about cases involving political issues, such as abortion or privacy rights. Rather I am talking about the appointment of a person whose primary effort in recent decades has been political in nature. The Court was established as a check on what it refers to as the political branches, with such a political figure in its midst, will the Court legitimately be able to claim the mantle as an apolitical body.

Fourth, like it or not, the Supreme Court works largely in private, behind closed doors because as an institution, the Court believes the focus should be on the opinions and decisions it hands down in cases, not on the mechanics of its operation. By nature and temprament, the Justices, for the most part, shun the spotlight outside of legal circles. Clinton, by nature, is a person who craves the spotlight, enjoys its glare and welcomes the attention. I am not sure how that would play among the other members of the Court. Perhaps some light would be shed on the Court's workings, but I am not convinced that such exposure would be good for the Court.

Fifth, and finally, I just don't see President Bush appointing Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court just to prevent Hilary Clinton from being elected President. I think the GOP and Karl Rove will just take their chances in the electroal process.

Still, the idea is interesting, but not very likely.