ConfirmThem

Jeffrey Rosen is strangely fixated on this idea that a Clinton will end up on the Supreme Court. I attended a speech of his last year when he was promoting his book at which he went out of his way during Q&A to predict that Hillary would appoint Bill if she were President. That will not happen. Bill would not accept an Associate Justice position (it is below his dignity as a former President to accept anything less than the Chief Justiceship, which is currently occupied by a a man in his young 50s) or a pay cut.

I think the same is true for Hillary. She has a great gig as a Senator who is very popular with New Yorkers. She would appear to have a lock on that seat for as long as she wants it. Going on the bench, she would have to suffer opinions by Nino and Thomas excoriating her positions. Criticism from opponents in the Senate are much more courteous. She would likely stay there than take a seat on the Supreme Court.

Finally, I doubt Obama would take such a position. He has not really practiced law for awhile, so it is hard to gauge his interest in diving into court work. Moreover, he'll still be young enough in 2012 and 2016 (and 2020 and 2024) to run for President--the job he really wants--if he does not win this year.

Rosen is a goofball - always has been. He sees legal issues from a very strange perspective; his articles always read very strangely. Most of the time, his opinions can be discounted out of hand.

In the first two paragraphs alone, I found several glaring errors. He says most of the Dem federal judges are too old to be considered for SCOTUS. This isn't true, but by saying it it allows him to get to his argument, which is to appoint Hillary as SCOTUS.

He then says the youngest Bush appointee is Neil Gorsuch (40). Not so - Kimberly Moore is younger (39), as is Amul Thapar (38). There are many other errors, but you get the point. Rosen is sloppy and goofy.

Earlier, we had a similar discussion when someone suggested that Hillary Clinton might nominate her husband Bill. I seriously doubt that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would accept a Supreme Court nomination. Why? The job is too restrictive and doesn't pay enough.

Although politicians in the long ago past may have wanted to be on the Supreme Court, the position now would be unworkable for most. As major league politicians, Bill, Hillary and Barack enjoy a glittering limelight that soothes their attention-seeking egos. That limelight wouldn't exist if they became justices - no more lavish party fundraisers, no more free trips paid for by special-interest groups, no more highly remunerated partisan speaking engagements. Politicians like the Clintons and Obams would die under such conditions. These people need big paychecks and crowded press conferences in order to survive. I really think this is the reason why George Mitchell and Mario Cuomo refused to accept Bill Clinton's offers to join the Supreme Court back in the 1990's.

Rosen's article more accurately identifies four others as likely SCOTUS nominees under a new Dem president: Sonia Sotomayor, Kim Wardlaw, Elena Kagan and Beth Brinkmann. Brinkmann is a new name, and Rosen has an interesting commentary on her:

"...the next Democratic president could follow the strategy George W. Bush pursued with John Roberts--choosing a distinguished lawyer in private practice and appointing her first to an appellate court and then to the Supreme Court. A Democratic, female John Roberts would be a highly respected Democratic Supreme Court advocate, and the clear front-runner in that category is Beth S. Brinkmann, 49, a partner at Morrison & Foerster who has argued more than 20 cases before the Court. A lawyer like Brinkmann--moderate, pragmatic, and pro-business--would have no trouble being confirmed to an appellate courtship..."

Actually, the statement that most Clinton CoA judges are too old to be prime SCOTUS appointments pretty much rings true.

Out of the 60+ Clinton appointments, I don't think a single one was born in 1959 or later (putting him/her at 50 years old, Roberts' age, upon appointment)

The course that Bobo quoted above works for a 2011 vacancy; it doesn't for a 2009 Stevens retirement.

Obviously,you only need 1 candidate, and the 4 names in the article were all 1950s births. But if Sotomayor and a couple others have skeletons in their closet, that will pose Obama a couple problem.

" Bush appointees are, on average, seven years younger than Clinton appointees. "

You'd expect Bush appointees to be younger....considering they were made 8 years in the future.

In his press junket for his new book on the Supreme Court, Jeffrey Toobin on several occasions suggested that if Hillary Clinton won this fall she would appoint Barack Obama to the Supreme Court. This is the first and only time I have heard of such a possible move. In general, I agree that Rosen is a sloppy, unorigianl writer. Basically, I think he is just co-opting Toobin's ridiculous speculation.

It would be a first though - I doubt any other nominees had been disbarred for perjury.

Rosen's point about the age problem of Democrat Circuit Judges is well taken. And if McCain can hold the White House for another 4-8 years, nearly all Democrat appointees will be too old for nomination. Unless the next Democrat POTUS just decides to abandon pretense altogether and nominates Reinhardt (ha ha!).

One problem with some people's doomsday scenario: There ain't gonna be no President Barack Obama in 2009. Actually, he is a gift from Divine Providence to the GOP. The U.S. is not yet so far gone that it will elect a cultish hard-line leftist posing as an amorphous priest of vacuous Hope and Change for zombies. Especially when his radical Moslem and violent domestic leftist ties are exposed (Farrackhan, Said, Khalidi, Rezko, Ayers, Dohrn - for starters). That is, unless a major and unmistakable Recession/Depression takes hold before November, in which case anything could happen. Remember what happened in 1932. I'm referring to Germany, not America.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2Y5MTY2NzcwYjU1N2JiMDIxZTE2Nzc0...

"A former colleague of Brinkmann, in an e-mail to me, assesses her rather differently:

Beth is plenty smart, at an impressionistic, gestalt level, but she is one of the least linear thinkers I have met, in Supreme Court practice or any legal practice. If you ask Beth to get you from A to C, she could not do it in fewer than 9 steps. It would probably involve a detour, albeit an interesting one, through L, X, P, and some Spanish or French letter that is not even in our alphabet.

The Chief is a cold, rational intellect. Beth? Not even in the same galaxy.

The notion that she is somehow sensitive to business concerns - just because, at present, she finds herself in the sad predicament of having to work for a living at a law firm — is just bonkers. She is as hard left as they come."