April 13th, 2010
04:38 PM ET

Hillary Clinton as Supreme Court justice?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

First Lady... Senator... Presidential candidate... Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton's resume is already an impressive one ... but what about Supreme Court Justice as her next step?
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/13/art.h.clinton.jpg caption=""]
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah first floated the idea... saying Clinton "would be an interesting person in the mix" ... as a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

The White House was quick to take the air out of it... saying that President Obama thinks Clinton is doing an "excellent job" as Secretary of State and that he wants to keep her there. Clinton's spokesman also chimed in - saying the Secretary of State loves her job and isn't looking for another one...

But it's not such a far-fetched notion... and some Clinton supporters love it. Longtime adviser Mark Penn tells Politico that Clinton would make a great justice... that she would "bring a revolution to the court and would be confirmable."

Even her mother has talked about the scenario... once telling a reporter she thought Hillary would be the first woman to serve on the high court...she says she was "kind of sorry" when Sandra Day O'Connor became the first.

It's also worth pointing out that since the retirement of O'connor - the Supreme Court has been made up entirely of career legal scholars and jurists - not a single prominent public figure... in the tradition of justices like William Howard Taft, Earl Warren and Thurgood Marshall.

A nominee like Clinton could change all that.

Here’s my question to you: Why shouldn't Pres. Obama consider Hillary Clinton for the Supreme Court?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 6pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

Filed under: Hillary Clinton • Supreme Court
soundoff (152 Responses)
  1. Michael G Tampa, FL

    Well Jack,
    She probably would not make a very good Supreme Court Justice because she has not spent her life or her career as a judge.
    I seriously doubt she has the qualifications to be appointed.
    She has spent her life and her career in politics, not in the judicial system.
    I don't know where you came up with this question, but Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be nominated to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
    The three names most recently publicized are all very well qualified.

    Michael G
    Tampa, FL

    April 13, 2010 at 2:51 pm |
  2. Michael in Phoenix

    God no.

    A Supreme Court justice needs to make decsions based on fact not feelings.

    April 13, 2010 at 2:52 pm |
  3. Harold, in ANCHORAGE, AK

    She'd be an excellent, no-nonsense judge.
    Her high intelligence and maturity make her an great asset in any position.

    April 13, 2010 at 2:54 pm |
  4. Eric - Houston

    I think HRC is turning out to be a very good Secretary of State and if the truth be known, I would rather have had her as President, but I don't think she would be as effective as a Supreme Court Justice. While she would bring a lot of things to the bench, experience in the Senate and the Department of State as well as the campaign trail to name just a few, she would likely not bring what would sway the other justices, namely legal knowledge and tightly reasoned constitutional law arguments. While she can be persuasive, I believe that instead of being a real leader as she is elsewhere, she would be forced to be a follower on the court, since I do not think most of the other justices would follow a non-jurist and I think she would be wasted for just her perspective.

    April 13, 2010 at 2:55 pm |
  5. Tom, Avon, Me, The Heart of Democracy

    A good one. She is not afraid of hard work. She was among the brightest in her law class. She understands the Constitution, The American public, and the role of the Supreme Court in our tri-partite system of government.

    Competent Justices are easier to come by than stellar Secretaries of State. Remember Con Rice?

    April 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm |
  6. Michael Alexandria, VA

    A good one – but not until she as done as Secretary of State. Let the next Democratic President put both her and Obama on the Court, Jack.

    April 13, 2010 at 2:59 pm |
  7. Russ in PA

    A terrible one? Any chance she'd actually defend the Constitution? Prove it...

    April 13, 2010 at 3:02 pm |
  8. pat in michigan

    Poor. Why would you put a career politician on the supreme court!If Obama really wants the best for this nation(and I doubt that)He needs to pick a CENTRIST.One who follows the law not the tides of political expediency.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:07 pm |
  9. Jim Z..Ft. Worth...Texas

    I don't think that will work in this century. First of all the Republican party has figured it out that if you stall the process of seating a Supreme Court justice it does the conservative party well. With the fall elections so close it would be in the best interest of the country to delay an appointee until afterwards. This country has become a circus of diluted mentalities that haven't a clue how the system is designed and supposed to work. It has become a media fed circus of here-say and party metaphors. Hillary would just be tender vittles for the media who would resurrect all of her
    husbands idiosyncrasies back to life..

    April 13, 2010 at 3:07 pm |
  10. Joy in Texas

    Hillary would be a great Supreme Court justice. However, as U.S. President for eight years beginning in 2016 ( after Obama has served two terms), she could possibly appoint one or more Justices. I hope she has not given up her goal of being the first female President.This kind of wild speculation just drives the GOP nuts, but I can dream, can't I?.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:09 pm |
  11. Joshua

    I wish we could still see The Situation Room but for some reason CNN has stopped showing it live in the UK and replaced it with "World Report".

    We want you back, Jack!

    April 13, 2010 at 3:11 pm |
  12. Ray W

    No way no how. Big name, big ego but small experience in what it takes to be a Supreme Court judge.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:11 pm |
  13. Edwin A Hoffman

    Cedar City, UT

    No, she and her husband have already shown they have little regard for the truth, and justice.

    They are politicians and therefore untrustworthy, and untruthful.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:13 pm |
  14. Tom in Desoto, Tx

    She the kind of justice that would not receive one republican vote for confirmation.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:17 pm |
  15. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    Probably as good a justice as she is a Secretary of State, and that’s from someone who couldn’t stand her in 1992 through the 2008 primaries. But it will never happen.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:18 pm |
  16. Cheryl in Bluffton, SC

    I don't know what kind of justice she'd make, but it'd be fun to see the GOP try to obstruct her nomination after all the crocodile tears they shed for her during the 2008 primaries.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:19 pm |
  17. Jim in Alabama

    Jack, I think Hillary is a very intelligent woman, but what real qualification does she have to become a supreme court justice? Knowlege of politics does not a SCOTUS make.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:19 pm |
  18. Paul Austin, Texas

    She would make a very good one. Hillary Clinton is a very smart woman weather you like her or not. She is straight forward and would be fair in any decision that she would make as a Supreme Court Justice. She would add a true voice of the people and that is what is so strongly needed in the highest court of the land. If asked she should take the position and she would be confirmed quickly.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:20 pm |
  19. Tina Tx

    She would be as good as some of the men who gather dust up there. Why not give her a try?

    April 13, 2010 at 3:21 pm |
  20. honestjohn in Vermont

    She would in all likelyhood be an excellent Justice for the Supreme Court. It would also probably keep her from running for office too which would make some folks happy.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:21 pm |
  21. Jurgen R. Brul

    Hello Jack Cafferty and CNN friends,

    Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton would make a good Supreme Court justice, because she has graduated from Yale Law School and as the United States Secretary of State she stand up for All the American people.

    Jurgen R. Brul

    April 13, 2010 at 3:21 pm |
  22. Michael H. in Albuquerque, NM

    Considering her choice in marriage and politics: she would be a judge with very poor judgement. We need a justice that will stand up against the corporatists that currently sit on the bench. We need somebody that will provide justice to the disenfranchised.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
  23. Kenny in the High Desert of California

    A darn good one, but it is probably not in the cards for her to stand more than a day in the same room with those wing nuts in robes.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:30 pm |
  24. Homeless D in Atlanta

    I guess Hilary would be as good a Justice as any other legal person. she seems deliberate and inclined to thoughtfulness.

    However, I actually have a second cousin who is an appelate judge, and I really with Obama would pick HER!

    April 13, 2010 at 3:32 pm |
  25. Ed from California

    I have a real problem with anyone in government having a perminate job for life. These judges are political animals anyway. They're asked by Congress, "How do you feel about this or that". Come on, give all judges a five year term and we'll see how they do. Besides, they can only rule on the law. And we can probably get a windows program to do it for a lot less.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:35 pm |
  26. Francap

    She would make a great Justice, but we need her here on the ground.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:35 pm |
  27. Maria

    Clinton may just be the perfect Supreme Court Judge. But I love her as SOState so I'd say why fix something that's not broke...and go for equally or better qualified than HRC for the court.



    April 13, 2010 at 3:36 pm |
  28. Bizz Quarryville, Pennsylvania

    I think Hillary Clinton would make an excellent supreme court justice. She is well liked in the senate on both sides of the aisle. President Obama should present the choice to her of being a Supreme Court justice or staying on the secretary of state. Which she is doing an excellent job.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:37 pm |
  29. Phyllis Buckner .. Oklahoma

    Hillary would be excellent. I hope he nominates her. Or runs her as his VP in 2012.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:38 pm |
  30. Kevin in Dallas

    She's even less qualified than Harriet Miers.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:38 pm |
  31. Remo, from beautiful downtown Pflugerville, Texas

    Completely biased! She would most likely try to finish agendas that she and President Clinton started and never completed. I doubt that there would ever be a fair and impartial ruling let alone Constitutional!

    April 13, 2010 at 3:39 pm |
  32. John from Alabama

    Jack: Hillary Clinton would make a good Supreme Court Justice, but Secretary of State Clinton and Presdient Obama do not want her to be on the Supreme Court. President Obama is very pleased with the work she is now doing for this nation. Maybe down the road she might want to be a federal judge, but I think she really wants to be a good servant and grandmother.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:39 pm |
  33. Joe CE

    Hilary appears to be best qualified of the names being floated. Janet Napalitino is by far the worst.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:45 pm |
  34. David Warnock

    Hilary is a major opponent of the 2nd Amendment.
    This disqualifies her for my consideration.


    April 13, 2010 at 3:46 pm |
  35. cy gardner

    She's too old AND she's too corporate. America needs justices who will overrule corporate lobbyists like Roberts, Alioto and Scalia. We need someone in their forties who understands that the Constitution protects the rights of ordinary citizens, it is NOT the property of corporate fascist America. cy from arlington, va

    April 13, 2010 at 3:47 pm |
  36. calaurore9

    He should! It'll keep her from running for prez in 2012.

    Carol, Western Massachusetts

    April 13, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
  37. BEVERLY-Mystic,Iowa

    She would be excellent, but it doesn't seem like the type of job she would enjoy. Without knowing very much about it, I would imagine that she would have to be in court, with regular, long hours, every single day. I think it would be far too tedious for her, unlike her current position, where she calls the shots, & her itinerary changes all the time; she has meetings with world leaders, etc., & much more freedom than if she had to be trapped in a stuffy courtroom day in & day out. Does anyone really think she could be happy doing that?

    April 13, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
  38. Janice from DE

    An excellent choice ! But she is a terrific Secty of State also. She is just a multi-talented woman. But I think Ginsberg will leave the Court before Obama leaves office and then Clinton will move in. The perfect scenario is that Biden not run for VP again. When Obama wins second term, Ginsberg leaves, Biden is appointed Secty of State and Clinton goes to the Court.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm |
  39. Bill in Penna


    She would be a tough jurist. And pretty good too.

    But the nomination would put our already debilitated Senate into full and complete apoplexy and cardiac arrest. Walter Reed, The Naval Medical Center and all civilian hospitals in the DC area would be overloaded if such a crisis with 100 patients all checking into the emergency rooms at once. Make that 101; Rep. John Boehner too would need hospital care and be glad he has the full Cadillac health care package congress gives itself.

    Upon thinking – you have a great idea there.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm |
  40. Richard Hill/NH

    Yes Jack,
    Hillary Clinton would be an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, the only thing working against her are Actuarial Tables. Also, when you see prominent GOP MEMBERS hailing her virtues for the court, just remember, If Obama is a one term president, Hillary would be their greatest opponent.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:55 pm |
  41. Paulette in Dallas,PA

    This is an entertaining idea but will never happen. Hillary knows that she was never a judge and has really had little experience as a lawyer despite her degree. She doesn't want to be locked up in the Supreme Court building when she can be traveling the globe and doing what she really enjoys. I'm sure the speculation is very flattering to her though.

    April 13, 2010 at 3:59 pm |
  42. tom Trapani, Quito, EC

    I think she would be an effect justice.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:01 pm |
  43. Kachi

    Hilary as Supreme Court Judge? I find that pretty hilarious. Not only does she not have the nous, she has under-performed as Secretary of State.

    Well, maybe that's a last starw she can clutch on....in her dreams!

    I'm writing from Lagos, Nigeria.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:01 pm |
  44. Elwood Ahlsted

    Its about time people realize Hillary's ability!! That job would be well suited for her!! Oz from St.Louis

    April 13, 2010 at 4:08 pm |
  45. Raul

    Why not? She is as qualified as any other politician and then some. She lives in the real world and knows what every American hopes and fears about government and the world. She is a well rounded person and very astute litigator. She would make a fine Supreme Court Justice.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:08 pm |
  46. Olga O. Pina

    Due directly to the hateful nature of Republicans, Hillary will never become Supreme Court Justice.

    This country has reverted back to a history that we are all ashamed of and Congress is determined to repeat those errors.

    Austin, Texas

    April 13, 2010 at 4:09 pm |
  47. Jerry Jacksonville, Fl.

    I had rather have her as a justice then some of the judges that have been put in that position in the past.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:23 pm |
  48. The Broker.

    "Why not? When Barack Obama and his democrats are kicked out of office, she'll still have a job."

    April 13, 2010 at 4:25 pm |
  49. Greg in PA

    Because the robe would look too much like a dress and Hillary only wears pant suits. Jack it would be a fashion faux pas!

    April 13, 2010 at 4:26 pm |
  50. Mel Seyffert - Houston

    Sure the President should consider her. OK, now that is done lets move on. By the way is this the first time that a Republican said that a Democrat was qualified for anything. She really must be doing a great job a Secretary of State. Don't the Republicans consider themselves the masters of foreign policy.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:28 pm |
  51. Jack, Niceville, FL

    Does it really matter? Anyone he picks will be a left winger who ignores the Constitution and will be easily confirmed since only a simple majority of the Senate is required. At least the new Justice will be replacing Stevens, and not Roberts, Scalia or Thomas!

    April 13, 2010 at 4:28 pm |
  52. Pete - Georgia

    Well on one hand she would fit the never ending circus Obama is assembling perfectly.
    In reality, she is the biggest opportunist on this planet. She knows just about enough Law to close a loan on a "double wide" in Arkansas.
    This is beyond laughable.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:29 pm |
  53. Lori - PA


    Hillary Clinton should be considered for the Supreme Court as I beleive she would keep the process fair and balanced.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:31 pm |
  54. Lance, Ridgecrest, Ca

    Jack, well, let's think about this. How about:
    1. She has ZERO judicial experience.
    2. She is too old.
    3. She ain't interested.
    4. Her latest (and probably ONLY) experience with constitutional law has been the impeachment of her husband.

    How about the media just toss this stupid idea, and get serious.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:31 pm |
  55. san jose

    Because Hillary Clinton has been in trouble and facing Federal Court for campaign fund fraud. You cannot be the voice of the Constitution if you are willing to break the law for your own benefit.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:31 pm |
  56. Donald in CA

    Hillary Clinton would make a fine supreme court justice. The left have Hilliary, the right have sarah.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm |
  57. Adam Simi Valley, CA

    I am sure she woul make a great justice for some. She would then have the power to legistlate fro the bench and change the laws to her liking and ideology. She cares nothing for the constitution and the written law. She thinks the constittion is flawed and needs revision. This is not the role of a Justice. it is a role for the people.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm |
  58. Kirk Neuman (Apple Valley, MN)

    I'd rather she not be nominated for the job. I'd much rather she waits until 2016 and then beat the crap out of the Republican candidate for POTUS just like President Obama did in 2008 is will do again in 2012.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:41 pm |
  59. Layne Alleman

    Jack, It is, after all, his appointment to make(if he can dodge all the "experts"). Whomever he chooses will damned to the fires of Congress, however, and thats the shame of it. Layne A. Antioch, Il.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:42 pm |
  60. Michael Roepke - Dallas, TX

    What a great idea. Merely nominating her would raise the combined T-Party blood pressure to the breaking point. Then, having to deal with their health care issues, their blood pressure would increase again as they learned about pre-existing conditions, yearly and lifetime caps and increased insurance costs for the sick.
    She would never be confirmed, but how nostalgic would it be to hear that old anti-Hillary rhetoric from her First Lady days.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:43 pm |

    Well lets think....done.Hillary Clinton on the supreme court forget it.I'd rather see Jack Cafferty sitting up there.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:52 pm |
  62. Dennis North Carolina

    it would be a waste of talent and we do not need her hiding in the court after being in the public so long.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:54 pm |
  63. Gerry Erman

    She would make a horrible Chief Justice and our constitutional rights would be in more jeopardy than they are now. The Clintons carry a lot of baggage & none of it honorable.

    Ash Fork, Az

    April 13, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  64. Fredd in MI

    Because she doesn't want to join the "juristocracy" of the Supreme Court.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  65. Eugene Northern Cal

    It's a given Obama will appoint a liberal female to the Supreme Court but pleas not Hillery. She'll attempt to change the Constitution with her liberal progressive agenda. She is a good Sec. State.

    April 13, 2010 at 4:58 pm |
  66. Lynn

    I think Hillary is doing great right where she is.
    Since she knows what she is doing as Secretary of State, it would be better to keep her there and not have to break in someone else.
    There are a lot of promising ones that the President is looking at and he will pick a good Justice
    The other Party should be quiet and let President make the decision just like they have done when they were in office.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
  67. Alex in Gig Harbor

    Because she is doing such a fine job as Secretary of State and may yet want to be president someday. Secretary of State used to be the stepping stone to the presidency.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  68. Lydalyn in Ohio

    No for Justice and no for President. The credentials for Supreme Justice should be...

    1) Complete Legal Methodology: I would, at the very least, hope that the Supreme Court Justice has a grasp of the 5 basic types of legal arguments: intent, text, tradition, precedent and policy. Everyone here seems to imply that only one of those is ever appropriate in their analysis (e.g. a lot of strict constructionists think that intent/text are the only ones relevant whereas a lot of “living constitution” types think that only “policy” is relevant). A good justice should take all of these into consideration.

    2) Good Writing: this serves two important functions. First, lawyers will be able to read and understand what the justice is actually trying to say. This will provide consistency and eliminate ambiguity in the law. Second, people will be able to read and understand what the justice is trying to say. Some of the current justices are better at writing than others. A good writer would make it easier for people (layman included) to actually learn Constitutional Law. It’s my personal belief that every single American, whether they agree with the rulings or not, should at least understand the Court’s arguments.

    Clinton does not have these qualities/abilities on her resume.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  69. Sam Dallas

    Mrs.Clinton loves to physically interract and feel the people, and that is why she is doing exceptionally well as the Secretary of State. She wouldn't want to be confined in an enclosure like the Supreme Court. Besides, you can't trust the party of 'NO' to co-operate.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  70. Greg H - Minneapolis

    She is far more likely to at least be nominated, if not confirmed. The current Regime has a tax cheat as Secretary of the Treasury, why not someone involved in the Rose Law Firm scandal as a Supreme Court justice? However, a justice on the highest court should be required by the Constitution to be a JUDGE for a minimum period, say 5 years. We have Constitutional requirements for the Legislative and Executive branches of government, why not for the Judicial branch as well?

    April 13, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  71. Michael, Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: There are two many skeletons in her closet--plus when was the last time she actively practice law? not a good choice.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  72. Stephen In Pa

    Leave Hillary where she's at. She doing a good job. Nominate Sarah Palin. How much fun can we have with that. It'll put the Republicans in a hell of a jam!

    April 13, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  73. Gigi Oregon

    I hope she isn't tempted or asked to serve. She is so much more suited and needed to run for the office of the President of the U.S. whether 2012 or 2016. Look at her background for the presidency. It would be nice to have some one with experience in the job, rather than just book knowledge or desire.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:13 pm |
  74. Retired-Vet

    Probably as good a pick conservatives could hope for under the leftist regime currently in place.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:17 pm |
  75. JENNA

    Why shouldn't Pres. Obama consider Hillary Clinton for the Supreme Court?

    She is too far RIGHT leaning for my taste.

    Roseville CA

    April 13, 2010 at 5:17 pm |
  76. Jayne

    I think she'd make an excellent Supreme Court justice, but I'd prefer that she keep her options open for 2016. I wasn't much of a Hillary supporter prior to her role as Secretary of State, but she's been so impressive in that position I would definitely support her in a presidential election.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:17 pm |
  77. Scott Stodden

    I as a Hillary supporter and a Democrat would not be upset if she became a Supreme Court Justice, I personally support anything Hillary does, she just has that effect on you if your a Democrat! As happy and proud of her as I would be if she became a Supreme Court Justice I personally think she's doing an outstanding job as Secretary Of State and I would still like to see her run for President again but if she does become part of the Supreme Court I would support her as I always do!

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Illinois)

    April 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm |
  78. Gary H. Boyd

    Jack, Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court makes perfect sense and is a fabulous idea. Just consider the wealth of experience she would bring to the court - education, the law, love, matrimony, child bearing, politics, betrayal, humiliation, tolerance, acceptance and the list goes on. Who would not want to throw themselves upon her mercy. Wow Jack, what a great idea.

    Gary Boyd in Scottsdale, Arizona

    April 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm |
  79. Gregory Tripp, Mechanicsburg

    The question should be, "Why not?" She is a powerful thinker and that is just what our nation needs for balance in an overly conservative mind bent court. Never again should the will of the people and the Constitution be so grossly disregarded in another decision like appointing George Bush as President. That was a crime against man and God that the world will continue to pay the price for decades to come.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  80. Gordo, NJ

    Since she is doing a good job at State, let her say there for now. Keep her in reserve to replace any of the four justices who should retire - Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts - because their thought processes are just too old for the modern world.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:27 pm |
  81. Nancy, Tennessee

    As much as I love Hillary, I can't recommend her to the Supreme Court. She is doing a great job as Secretary of State and she needs to stay in a position where she is revelant. Supreme Court justices with all of their power only get to make a decision once every few years that really impacts our lives. Hillary is much more important than a Supreme Court judge.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  82. Justin Russell

    It would be a great political choice and a great choice altogether.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  83. Tom, Avon, Me, The Heart of Democracy

    Jack, there are so many comments ignoring the facts of her accomplishments and abilities that I need to say, she was twice named by Time magazine as a top 100 lawyer nationally. She is overqualified.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:30 pm |
  84. steve- virginia beach

    Because anyone who believes that illegal aliens are law-abiding citizens as she stated during the Presidential debates doesn't know enough about the law to correctly interpret it. And anyone who proudly proclaims to be most closely aligned with Woodrow Wilson either doesn't know enough about the Constitution, our Founding Father's explainations and clarifications of the Constitution, or simply doesn't care. And the last thing we need is another hyper-partisan activist in the SCOTUS.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:32 pm |
  85. King

    Jack, call me crazy forget about Hillary how about Judge Judy. I'm not joking the court need a common sense judge.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  86. Aaron

    Makes perfect sense and no one could deny her experience from either party.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
  87. Mari, Utah

    President Obama has already said, that Mrs. Clinton is not on his list. She is a wonderful Secretary of State, enough said.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
  88. Don (Belleville, Ontario)

    Yes. She is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable and capable. The Republicans might have a real problem with her, however, as she presumably does not share very many values with them. As a foreigner, I think that is a good thing.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
  89. Ersula Watson

    While I would hate to see Secretary of State Clinton leave her current post, I think she'd be totally radical as a Supreme...love the concept.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:37 pm |
  90. Raj Springfield, VA

    Good Choice. But who will replace her? Remember the name "Clinton" in getting the 2 journalists from N.Korea.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:37 pm |
  91. Cindy

    If Hiliary has expressed desires in the past of being a part of the supreme court then why not.

    I though believe if Obama is considering Hiliary, it will be to eliminate her as a 2012 candidate for president.

    Obama did not place the deficit and good paying job creation as his priority. He placed healthcare as a priority while Americans are still underemployed and unemployed and our deficit to Communist China is ballooning.

    I am a Hiliary supporter since 1989 and we Hiliary supporters here in Texas are hoping for her to run against Obama if he keeps screwing things up.

    If she wishes to apply for the job, we will support her. In Texas we feel she will turn it down and run for president in 2012.

    Thank you.

    North Richland Hills, Texas

    April 13, 2010 at 5:38 pm |
  92. Danny Cali

    I think Mr. Hatch and Republican just scare about one day Hillary going to be the next President that's why he want to lock Hillary in this position, but the true is she not going to sit for this job. So, after she finish her President term maybe.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm |
  93. Rocky

    I nominate Judge Judy. She would settle every case in 30 minutes or less.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm |
  94. Big Bill

    A good choice, but she is a little older than the other candidates so she would not serve as long. I would prefer to have a younger candidate who would have a larger impact on the court. Dianne Wood, Jane Napolitano, or Jennifer Granholm might be better choices.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm |
  95. John NYC

    It keeps her out of the presidential contention and plants a seed for the Democrats to continue destroying our country without resistance. Its a win win for Democrats.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm |
  96. Sean in St. Louis

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it-she is doing a great job as Secretary of State and needs to stay there.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:43 pm |
  97. san jose

    Hillary is not qualified for the job for many reasons.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:44 pm |
  98. Jeff , Douglass, KS

    Absolutely. But, she has her own ambitions, and she does serve at the pleasure of the President. After everyone of the players thinks over their own interests, I think she would make a great justice – she's a damn smart cookie and tough as they come. I hope the stars align for this one, because she could make a difference on the court.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:44 pm |
  99. scott

    Michael G from Tampa,

    You mean like Chief Justice John Roberts who was only appointed as a DC circuit judge while he basically awaited Supreme Court Confirmation?

    April 13, 2010 at 5:45 pm |
  100. David Sisters OR

    Secretary of State Clinton is one of those people who is born to be in public service, she would do any job well. However, right now she is such a critical part of how we deal with our foreign relationships, she should stay where she is and continue the excellent work she is doing now.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:46 pm |
  101. Jony3322

    I would like to see her running for president again after Obama done his second term.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:47 pm |
  102. Terrence Cain

    Hillary Clinton does not and will not take a seat as judge on the Supreme Court. The only reason Republicans are for a nomination of Hillary is because Hillary scares them and knows that if she was to run again she'd most likely win as president and Republicans just can't handle that, so these rumors are just silly and unfounded.

    Terrence Cain
    Big Spring, TX.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:48 pm |
  103. Spencer in Oakland CA

    Republicans would love this cause it would take her out of the running in 2016. And they fear her in 2016! There is no doubt that they would love to get rid of her on the Supreme Court where a liberal is going to be put anyway.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  104. Annie, Atlanta

    There's no reason he shouldn't, other than she's great right where she is as Secretary of State. And maybe he has some inside information like her not wanting to be considered.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  105. Wm Scot Tacoma

    She is doing a heck of a job as the Sec of State ! We would not like to lose her in that capacity . She has another six plus years to go in her current job !

    April 13, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  106. 60driver

    I am a life long Republican who did not vote for her husband or Obama. Having said that, I feel that she has made a good Secretary of State, she has intelligence and determination to represent us in the world. However, she has absolutely no experience as a judge, and is in no way qualified to be a Supreme Court judge. That takes experience which she doesn't have.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
  107. Sandy

    She would be an excellent choice. She is intelligent, and is very capable of making the correct choice for the people vs. big corporations. We need a Hilary on the court to fight for us.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
  108. Wylie in the Azores

    It would be fun to watch the Republicans sputter with rage, esp. Palin & Co.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:52 pm |
  109. Ench for

    I'm a fan of Hillary but I'd rather see her stay in her position as Secretary of State.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:53 pm |
  110. Jeff

    Jack, you really want to put this country out of its misery, don't you?

    April 13, 2010 at 5:53 pm |
  111. BettyJean

    Yes, I think she has excellent intelligence and does not need a lifetime of being a lawyer or a judge.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:57 pm |
  112. Joe from Brigantine, NJ

    That job would be too confining for her after being "First Lady" and "Secretary of State". It would also be a waste of her talents and experience. Although I have not been a big Hilary fan, I am quite pleased with the job she has been doing as Secretary of State. If it ain't broke don't break it.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:57 pm |
  113. Kwasi Bame

    Jack, I think Hillary will be a perfect fit to change the make up of the nations' highest court. She should definitely be nominated.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:57 pm |
  114. Austin Texas Pioneer

    I would rather her be the President.
    I am sure she would make it on the court. The GOP does not want her to give it another shot.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:58 pm |
  115. Matthew

    the supreme court is a political body, just unelected. The court makes political decisions all the time that change with the social norms of the US. A person like Sec Clinton who has real world political experience would probably be a good person at bringing together various fractions of the court.

    April 13, 2010 at 5:58 pm |
  116. Sheliah M.

    I agree with Spencer in Oakland, CA. I have a REAL PREFERENCE for having President Obama SELECT his OWN Supreme court nominations...WITHOUT the "humor" of Orin Hatch...of ALL people!

    GO FIGURE! I look forward to Hillary...running for President in 2016...and she has my VOTE, already!

    April 13, 2010 at 5:58 pm |
  117. Dave

    No, Hillary would definitely NOT make a good Supreme Court justice. She does not have the knowledge, experience, or temperament. She would merely perpetuate the dreadful trend of the court making political decisions and interpreting the Constitution to mean whatever they think it ought to mean, rather than what it actually says.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:00 pm |
  118. Eric

    Jack – he needs to nominate Sarah Palin. Not that she's qualified, but it would placate the Repubs while silencing an annoying anti-Obama voice in the media.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:01 pm |
  119. Barbara

    Harold in ANCHORAGE, AK, I'm with you. Hillary Clinton gives her heart and soul and intellect to every undertaking. She would be excellent.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:01 pm |
  120. John R

    I want someone who will uphold the constitution, not misinterpret it to meet their political ambitions. Maybe others have already done that it the past, but that does not make it right. Clinton as supreme court justice, no.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:03 pm |
  121. Stuart, Daytona Beach FL

    she would make an awful Justice, but in other words, a perfect replacement for Stevens. BUT she would be just about a PERFECT pick for Obama, since she wouldnt be running in '12, which we ALL know shes going to do unless unemployment tanks (which we all know it wont)

    April 13, 2010 at 6:03 pm |
  122. Anthony R. Ravenell

    She should stay put as she has done a really good job as Secretary of State for this country. Plus, you never know the future as she could be President.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:03 pm |
  123. m w lovelace

    Hillard would make a great justice.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:04 pm |
  124. Karen - Nashville TN

    Don't you think Secretary Clinton has enough on her plate right now?

    April 13, 2010 at 6:04 pm |
  125. JayD

    Supreme Court justice? No.

    My crystal ball says it'll be President Hillary Clinton before long.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
  126. Mark Hot Springs Arkansas

    Great she has been a senator,secutary of state,and president at one time sure why not.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
  127. MJ

    I don't think so. She failed the bar exam in New York. My son in law passes it on the first try.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
  128. Lisa Golladay

    Hillary would be a fine choice - it would be nice to get someone who is not a career legal scholar. But she's busy as Secretary of State. Now Bill, on the other hand, is someone who needs steady work...

    April 13, 2010 at 6:08 pm |
  129. steve- virginia beach

    Because she's a self-described Progressive. Progressives don't like our Founding Father's interpretation of the Constitution because it prohibits their agenda at the Federal level. That's why Progressives conveniently claim that the Constitution is obsolete and/or has to become a "living document". If one believes that justices are supposed to interpret the law, not create it then SCOTUS and Progresives are supposed to be oxymorons.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:08 pm |
  130. Trevor

    NO NO NO NO!
    Enough of the political royalty of Clintons, Bushes, and Kennedys.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:10 pm |
  131. Zach

    Yeah, Clinton is a good choice. Bill Clinton, that is.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:10 pm |
  132. m w lovelace

    Obama is more scared of Hillary than the Republicans. A great place to make sure she doesn't run against him again!!!

    April 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm |
  133. Lauri

    Not sure Hillary would be best for a position that envisions a lifetime appointment. It's not clear she's through with her political career, and we wouldn't want her leaving the court in 2016 to run for president. Though she would not be obliged to stay on the court forever, the purpose of lifetime appointments is to prevent politics and other special interests from making their way into judges' rulings. If a judge feels like they have to find a job after being a judge (whether that be in politics or the private sector) they will be more inclined to rule the way they think others want them to rule – not based on what they truly should be the outcome in light of the law. I can't imagine Hillary's lifetime goal is to become a supreme court justice, as prestigious as it is. And it would completely run counter to what a supreme court justice is all about if she were to run for president later.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:13 pm |
  134. Mobius

    Obama would LOVE to have her even more out of the way than she is now – SCOTUS is for life.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:13 pm |
  135. story Cool

    I think Hillary would be the best choice for supreme court.

    We will not be able to do better.

    She will be honest, fair, has great wisdom and intelligence.

    Has a mind of her own.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  136. JC in SC

    She's the best lawyer for the job, that I can think of. She's awesome. For those naysayers: Look up her biography on line. She's accomplished extraordinary things and is an incredible advocate for children and the downtrodden.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  137. Michael Long island, NY

    I think she would be excellent as a supreme court judge. She would bring much needed change to the bench.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  138. Jay

    She has never been a Judge, so I am really wondering how she could in any way be seen as being qualified as a Supreme Court Justice? The idea might sound nice, but it would be a truely poor use of talent, and unusually unfair to all concerned.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  139. Vickey in Colorado

    After the crooked way the primaries were handled, and the fiasco convention in Denver, there are more than a few people that are counting on her running for President again.
    Even a few Obots that have finally decided to quite drinking the Kool-Aid and open their eyes.
    This is just a plot by Obama supporters and Republicans to keep her away from the Presidency.
    God forbid a strong woman run this country!

    April 13, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  140. Dimslie

    Just when I thought the government couldn't get any worse you come up with that one.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  141. Dick McGrath

    I think it's a great idea. Career legal scholars/jurists bring a knowledge of the law but, on occasion, lack the understanding of society to apply those principles effectively. To think the court is not political is simply incorrect-Presidents (and their supporters) are seeking nominees whose political stances are shared, simply hidden beneath legal scholarship. The Justices most regretted are the appointees who turn out to have different political views and agendas. Eisenhower was surprised by Earl Warren; I believe Justice Stevens proved to be a surprise as well in how he tilted the court. Hillary Clinton's views are well known and represent the ideas of many. She would make an excellent member of the Court.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  142. Kyle McCreary

    I would be a great way to keep her from running for President and presenting a primary challenge to Mr. Obama.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  143. David M.

    Obama should not appoint her because she's not qualified. Just because you have a law degree and practiced at some time does not qualify you for the Supreme Court.

    She's very smart, no question about that. But I'm afraid of what her agenda may be if she were confirmed. She's doing fine as Sec of State. Besides, do you think there is one Republican in all of Congress that would vote in favor of her confirmation?? If you think the Clarence Thomas hearings were a 3 ring circus, this one would have several more rings.

    We don't need a liberal or a conservative. We need one who can rightly interpret the law and apply it. Will we get that? I highly doubt it.

    David M.
    Charlotte, NC

    April 13, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  144. Henry

    She has a first class legal mind. She is extremely qualified and neither a liberal or a conservative. She is down the middle.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  145. Dennis/Missouri

    Like Obama, Hillary has no regard for our Constitution. She would definitely legislate from the bench. Need any more reasons why Obama shouldn't consider her?

    April 13, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  146. Susan Callahan

    The question really should be.. "Why would Hillary Clinton want to be a Supreme Court Justice"......
    My guess is that after this stint as SOS she would be ready for a lifetime vacation from public service after this term is completed.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  147. Judith Horn

    Yes, Hillary Clinton would make a great Supreme Court Justice.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  148. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    For two main reasons : one – Why give republicans any reasons to celebrate for having one of your best democrat remove from foreign affairs influence and second why remove one of your best people that actually does great work for the nation and for the President! No wonder republicans would want Mrs. Clinton away from that post!

    April 13, 2010 at 6:28 pm |
  149. Carrie,

    Hilary is a fantastic Secretary of state we can’t afford to lose here in that capacity, and I’m sure she is not interstate,

    April 13, 2010 at 6:31 pm |
  150. Ray Herman

    I could easily see Obama putting her on the court for no other reason than to get rid of her as a possible challenger in the next presidential nomination process.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:36 pm |
  151. Ian from MN

    I think hillary might be slightly more of a lightning rod then the position requires. I find it hard to believe with all her political connections that she could really judge without bias the intent of the constitution.

    She is a policy maker not someone who takes made policy and decides if it's legal or not. She can serve the American people better with what she's currently doing, and there are better choices for a Justice.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:37 pm |
  152. Karl from SF, CA

    There is no doubt Hilary would make an excellent jurist and would bring a variety of experiences to the Court. Our crazy uncle from Utah even said so. Does that mean that her life experiences wouldn’t be as objectionable as say Justice Sotomayor? I do think she could have a positive influence in tempering the conservatives on social issues, but then maybe I’m as crazy as our uncle from Utah.

    April 13, 2010 at 6:38 pm |