Why not Justice Hillary?

The White House dismissed speculation that Hillary Clinton is on the Supreme Court short list. But why shouldn't she be?

Hillary Clinton might be a logical pick for Supreme Court.
(Image credit: Getty)

The White House and Secretary of State's office both quickly squelched rumors that President Obama is seriously considering Hillary Clinton to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. The idea, supported by "certain liberal-leaning sections of the internet," was officially floated by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who said Clinton would be an "interesting person in the mix." Clinton seems qualified — Yale Law, onetime practicing lawyer — so why not nominate her? (Watch an NBC discussion about the vacant Supreme Court seat)

Seating Clinton would be a bloodbath: Experience cuts both ways, says David Bass in The American Spectator. Clinton's Senate vetting would "entail a gory fight," and her "long (and sordid)" political history would make her "all but prohibitive" as a nominee. Obama doesn't want that drawn-out battle leading up to the midterm elections, "and no wonder."

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up