Today on the news I heard two news stories, and the little voice in my head that connects things started shouting.
The first was that Bill Clinton was making his first campaign appearance on behalf of Senator Kerry since his heart surgery. Clinton introduced Kerry in Pennsylvania, one of the “swing states.”
The second story was about Supreme Court William Rehnquist being treated for thyroid cancer. The Chief Justice, 80, has been on the bench for over 30 years.
These two unrelated stories suddenly gelled in my mind. There are most likely going to be a couple vacancies on the High Court within the next four years, and the Chief Justice is a leading contender for retirement. And is the notion of “Chief Justice Clinton” appointed by President Kerry a completely untenable notion?
But which one? Kerry could nominate either Clinton. I see pros and cons both ways.
In Bill’s favor, he is currently essentially unemployed and has the time. He is also a former state Attorney General. There is also a historical precedent – President William Howard Taft (1909-1913) served as Chief Justice from 1921 until his death in 1930 (earning his footnote in American history as the only man to have headed up two of the three branches of the federal government).
Against Bill’s getting the nod are two factors that spring to mind. First, the role of the Chief Justice (or, for that matter, Associate Justice) has traditionally been one that’s been out of the spotlight. Justices are not known for public statements and addresses and positions – it’s always seemed unbecoming, and might even be against some rules. Clinton loves the spotlight, the attention, the adoration, and having people hang on his every word. He’s like a flower that needs the sunlight, and would wither away in the dusty chambers of the Supreme Court. Besides, I more easily see him at the United Nations – either as the U.S. Ambassador or (shudder) the first American Secretary General.
There’s also that awkward disbarment on his record
Grab your barf-bags folks, Kerry could appoint both of them!
Forget Hillary. Bill is interested in the U.N. Now that we know Mark Rich had something to do with the “Food for Oil” scam we know where Bill wants to be. Probably that is the connection with the pardon. And to be the head of all that corruption is just too good to pass up.
Yeah. It seems to me the more credible rumor-mongering would fall into the Secretary General Bill Clinton department. Certainly when one considers that nasty little footnote to Bill’s own career — impeachment — doesn’t really wash all that well with the whole Justice role.
you are on a ROLL!
GREAT!
Wow. You’ve managed to get my synapses firing again with that one. I’ve been suffering from election anxiety. I’ll have to think about this.
I think that Bill Clinton was disbarred.
Clinton disbarred from Supreme Court
The Supreme Court said today that a lawyer who was disciplined in his home state of Arkansas cannot practice law before the High Court. The action was totally unremarkable, except that the lawyer in question is former President Bill Clinton.
The justices
if – GOD FORBID – W loses, then CJ Wm Rehnquist could resign A/O, and W could replace him with Thomas, and Thomas with Blackwell (or anither bonafide Black CONSERVATIVE) IN THIS CONGRESS.
This would be a good fall back position.
ALSO (slightly OT) : if W loses (GOD, Please I pray forbid!) W could WHACK NoKo and Iran and Syria, and try to win the GWOT in one fell swoop – instead of letting James Earl Kerry capitulate.
Um… Katherine, thanks for reading and commenting, but if you look back up to the 8th paragraph, the one just before I start talking about Hillary:
There’s also that awkward disbarment on his record
Regarding the UN Secretary-General position, I thought I read somewhere that none of the five permanent members of the Security Council could have a citizen hold that position.
I guess I’ll have to look it up.
And best of all, putting Hillary on the court frees up ol’ JFK #2 to run for a second term….
I suppose I’d rather see Bill than Hilary on the bench. I think, deep down, Bill actually cares about the American people. Hilary just cares about power.
And I’d be very surprised if Hilary isn’t blasting Bill right now with that shrill, annoying voice and a stream of invective that would make a particularly-randy sailor wince. After all, SHE was supposed to be the next Democratic president, and Bill appearing with Kerry can only hurt those chances.
Y’know, I forgot to post what I originally meant to.
From dimly-recalled history lessons, didn’t Taft only run for President because he was using it as a means to an end to get onto the Supreme Court in the first place?
The whole key here would be Senate confirmation. Kerry can nominate whomsoever he pleases, but, as we’ve seen from the Demoncrats in the Senate, a filibuster could do the trick.