Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Hillary Clinton not a candidate for Supreme Court

By Anne E. Kornblut
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not under consideration as a Supreme Court nominee, the White House said Monday.

"The president thinks Secretary Clinton is doing an excellent job as Secretary of State and wants her to remain in that position," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

But other members of the Obama administration are under active consideration. The White House declined comment on the prospects for Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano, both of whom are on a list of about 10 candidates being reviewed. With speculation about a successor for retiring Justice John Paul Stevens increasing, administration officials said they expect the process to take several weeks, and that President Obama has not begun interviewing potential nominees.

Clinton had never been under consideration, officials said. But amid speculation that she might be, the White House sought to put the rumors to rest quickly.

By Anne E. Kornblut  |  April 12, 2010; 2:11 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Hillary Rodham Clinton , Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Biden thanks Quayle for the pool
Next: Huckabee compares same-sex marriage to incest, polygamy

Comments

What about giving Harriet Meirs another shot at it?

She's more than qualified.

Posted by: Flenzoro | April 13, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

And to this I say thank God!

Who would think that a third tier real estate attorney with no visible record of engaging in serious legal inquiry should be elevated to the Supreme Court?

And if sleeping with Bill Clinton is a prerequisite for appointment, then surely a more qualified candidate can be found.

Posted by: drwilly | April 13, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Whew, she is scarry enough where she is!

Posted by: judyj77 | April 13, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court is richer when it has people with a deep and varied life exdperience. Promoting lawyers to the Court who have spent their whole lives pushing legal briefs in Washington is not my idea of the type of person I would like on the Court. Lets get away from the myopic, limited and unimaginative worlds of Roberts & Alito.
==========================================
It's frightening that people think like this. The only purpose of the supreme court is to interpret whether laws are consistent with the constitution. A persons life experience outside of studying the law is irrelevant in that task. Putting justices on the court that do whatever they feel like pretty much renders the point of having a constitution irrelevant. Don't worry though Paulgroom. Obama doesn't care about that stuff either. With Obama, a persons gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation are number one priorities. Definitely no white males, he threw a bone to the latinos last time, I'm geussing a man-hating lesbian this time.

Posted by: peterg73 | April 13, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Too bad!

We'd have finally gotten a chance to get her to perjure herself under oath (not that Democrats think there's anything wrong with that) about those Rose Law Firm records and the 900 FBI files that were illegally directed to her.

We'll getcha next time, Hillary!

Posted by: NeverLeft | April 13, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Too bad!

We'd have finally gotten a chance to get her to perjure herself under oath (not that Democrats think there's anything wrong with that) about those Rose Law Firm records and the 900 FBI files that were illegally directed to her.

We'll getcha next time, Hillary!

Posted by: NeverLeft | April 13, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

There are justices who are to the left of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, but no liberal justices.

None of the so-called "liberals" on the Court are as far to the left as Scalia and some of the other conservatives.

The attack on "liberal-activists" is ridiculous, there's really no such thing as a strict-constructionist. All of the justices waver between strict-construction and activist on the various issues. It can be argued that Bush V. Gore was the most activist decision in the history of the court - ruled 5-4, with the so-called conservative strict-constructionists leading the way.

No liberal would decide that corporations have the free-speech right to run-over our electoral system.

I support a court which covers the political and social spectrum - which means we need Scalia since he is highly effective in articulating a conservative view, but we also need someone on the liberal side.

All of those mentioned as candidates, including Hillary Clinton, are moderate to moderate-left, not liberal.

Please also note the lack of religious diversity on the court. With so many Catholics, a protestant would balance out the court. No president has had the courage to nominate an atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, or whatever - anyone who doesn't hold the Judeao-Christan God as deity.

Perhaps, we need a transsexual, atheist, Asian!

I say that not to suggest a demographic category like "transsexual, atheist, Asian" should be used to recruit for the court, but simply to show how far away we are from demographic diversity - which can never really occur with nine justices.

Temperament, intellectual curiosity, a strong understanding of The Constitution, respect for established precedent, and a reticent willingness to rule in accordance with the advance of society are basic qualifications.

Then, we should balance the spectrum from left to right.

Finally, if we can also increase demographic (religious, gender, ethnic, etc.) diversity, we should do so. Sometimes that will be possible, sometimes not. Demographic diversity is an important symbol, but doesn't guarantee intellectual diversity.

At this point in time, increasing intellectual diversity is more important than increased demographic diversity.

However, if we have to go for demographic diversity, I'd like to see an atheist on the court.

Posted by: oldbrit | April 13, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama should give a good hard look at Akhil Reed Amar. He's one of the leading experts in the country on Constitutional law. He graduated summa cum laude from Yale College and the Yale Law School and was an editor of the “Yale Law Journal”. He was also a clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer when he was a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. He's been mentioned before as a possible nominee. He's liberal in his personal politics, but he's had the integrity to publicly endorse conservative ideas when he believes they better fit the intention of the Constitution. He's well-respected by people on both sides of the political spectrum. He's also not a sitting judge on any court, so he would be a very welcome breath of fresh air from the inbred group of jurists that the court has become. In short, he's exactly what we need right now - an undisputed expert with an open mind and a strong sense of integrity to interpret the Constitution according to the will of the people who ratified its various parts throughout history, not by the politics of the day or of any particular political ideology.

Posted by: Rob29 | April 13, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

QUOTE - Individual freedoms would fall like dominoes with Hillary tipping the court 5-4.

Posted by: RealTexan1

Uh, hey RealTexan1, just so you know, the Supreme Court is already tipped 5-4 FOR the conservatives. The Justice that is retiring, Justice John Paul Stevens, may have been appointed by a Republican but is considered liberal leaning. (He wrote the dissent for the recent ruling about corporations being the same as individual citizens when concerning campaign contributions.) So if Obama appoints a liberal leaning Justice, the Supreme Court will STILL BE TIPPED 5-4 FOR THE CONSERVATIVES. Please educate yourself. "Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Posted by: teriberi35 | April 13, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court is richer when it has people with a deep and varied life exdperience. Promoting lawyers to the Court who have spent their whole lives pushing legal briefs in Washington is not my idea of the type of person I would like on the Court. Lets get away from the myopic, limited and unimaginative worlds of Roberts & Alito.

Posted by: paulgroom | April 13, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Hillary for the Supreme Court? What are her qualifications beyond being married to a previous President, Senator, and now Sec. of State? Just how do those positions qualify her for a position to judge whether something is constitutional or not? She has never sat on a judical bench in her entire life!

Posted by: ahashburn | April 13, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Best news I've heard this a.m. But no surprise. She's been dying to get back at the Messiah ever since he of all people proved to the World that she couldn't beat him for the nod, even with all her and Willie's power and money. You think he's going to give her a chance to get back at him ? He may be dumb, and dumberlooking, but he's not stupid. You can tell he's not, by the way he sticks to his plan. The one he's studied for all his life. To destroy America from within. His Marxist background and actions prove his aim with every move he makes.

Posted by: puck-101 | April 13, 2010 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Apparently, anybody with a law degree and political connections is up for discussion.

It seems that this position requires someone with serious legal experience, and who has actually spent their career in the legal field, not just politicians like Hillary.

Posted by: postfan1 | April 13, 2010 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Washington Post, I'm not sure the people making these comments have actually read your newspaper. Here is the peril of allowing unsigned/anonymous comments. It makes one fear for the future of this country is this is the level of discourse on the future Supreme Court.

Posted by: 12seats | April 12, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post, I'm not sure the people making these comments have actually read your newspaper. Here is the peril of allowing unsigned/anonymous comments. It makes one fear for the future of this country is this is the level of discourse on the future Supreme Court.

Posted by: 12seats | April 12, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

tomorrow

in the senate

each and every republican senator

should solemnly announce that he/she

is NOT

a candidate for the supreme court

see??? seize the opportunity of negative news.........

Posted by: praetorian-guard | April 12, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

QUOTE: "WHAT? SO reproduction has nothing to do with abortion. So then life doesn't start the moment hot throbbing cum comes in touch with whatever it is females have? I thought that was you folks moment of life / conception. Abortion like condoms have everything to do with reproduction. It's a choice. It's an option. And it should be a right to all women." weholoel
============================
Obama's answer to the population explosion; Slaughter the unborn! Kill any that are born alive after the abortion procedure fails. America's answer to birth control! Morallity be damned! The right of Women to murder their unborn is the cry of the heathen and pagan hordes!

Judges and Lawyers, in their infinite arrogance, declares that life begins after the baby is delivered. Science declares that life begins at the moment of conception. Unwilling parents declare, hell, let the tax payers foot the bill, why should we pay for our mistakes and moments of unbridled lust. Obamanation says, kill em all and let Allah sort em out!

Posted by: Jordan48 | April 12, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

QUOTE: "A non-judge would definitely help broaden the scope of judicial decisions. There's a long precedent for this (many would argue that Warren did a great job with no prior bench experience). So Obama should pick a reliable progressive, someone who's got rich experience, and has no ambition for future political office.

I suggest that the nation, the court, and karma will be best served by nominating Al Gore. Let him sit on the same court with the activist justices who intervened to preempt his presidential bid.

While having Gore ruling on Bush-era policies' constitutionality would be delicious justice, more importantly, he might be an essential figure in reorienting the corporatist tilt of the current court. Limiting the power of Big Business should appeal to the populist mood on both the Left and Right. Of course, he'd have to divest himself of his invaluable Google shares first. Oh, and now that Stevens is leaving, Gore'd keep the all-important Protestant voice on the court. That should appeal to the religious right as well, right?"
===========================
Al Gore is too busy running around telling eveyone that the sky is falling!

Posted by: Jordan48 | April 12, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Naw.

Hillary for President in 016.

She would rock any Republican.

Posted by: ApostasyUSA | April 12, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

QUOTE: "Hillary's latest snaffu with regards to Reproduction Rights: "make Abortion an integral part of this program"...duh! Abortion has little to do with reproduction, it is the anti-thesis to reproduction dim wit!" - Jordan48

WHAT? SO reproduction has nothing to do with abortion. So then life doesn't start the moment hot throbbing cum comes in touch with whatever it is females have? I thought that was you folks moment of life / conception. Abortion like condoms have everything to do with reproduction. It's a choice. It's an option. And it should be a right to all women.

Posted by: wehojoel | April 12, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

QUOTE: "Bill would be more qualified than Hillary, though neither is a slouch in the brains department. Unfortunately, it would politicize the process in the extreme. Hopefully the relentless common sense and civility of this administration will wear down the idiots. I still believe in the audacity of hope and still support strongly Barack Obama." buddec
=========================
Boy, they sure have done a snow job on you. It's truly unfortunate that you are too blind to see what this covert Islamic fundamentalist is doing to this country. The only time you can tell that Obamanation is lying is when his lips are moving!

Posted by: Jordan48 | April 12, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's latest snaffu with regards to Reproduction Rights: "make Abortion an integral part of this program"...duh! Abortion has little to do with reproduction, it is the anti-thesis to reproduction dim wit!

Posted by: Jordan48 | April 12, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

QUOTE: "When is the last time Hillary practiced law? It's been a long damn time. I can't believe her name has even come up. Don't democrats think that a supreme court justice should have some recent experience?"
==============================
Experience....NOT REALLY! The only requirement that Obama demands on the next White House nominee for Supreme Court Justice is that they "boot step" to Obamanations demands and enforce his errant policies.

Repeal of the Child Protection Act, Free Tax Payer funded abortions to all who want one, Abridgement of the Freedom of Speech clause of the U S Constitution, Revocation of the U S Constitution, Legitimize government managed genocide for the aged and the infirmed, the halt and the lame, and the abolition of the legislative branch of government, etc, etc.

Posted by: Jordan48 | April 12, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

QUOTE: "Kind of an off shoot of Adolf Hitler's Kinder Corp wouldn't you say. Mold and manipulate the minds of the young so that they can mimmick their furhers madness!" - Jordan48

YES. You are right Sir. By using Justin Bieber to create a new Obamanation Youth Group the powers of the Liberal Controlled Socialist Government will take over our kids. We need to stop them now. Lock and Reload! Oh and if Justin only wins over your little girls into Obamanation I heard they just signed Ricky Martin to turn all your boys leftist gay!

Posted by: wehojoel | April 12, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

QUOTE: Oh it's a bit conspiracy! Everyone knows the Obama wont win reelection in 2012. So the next big hope is Hillary. She can't run if she's on the court! Also I heard that the Obama administration has created this teen sensation called Justin Bieber to sign our youth into submission and into the new Obama Youth Corp!
===========================
Kind of an off shoot of Adolf Hitler's Kinder Corp wouldn't you say. Mold and manipulate the minds of the young so that they can mimmick their furhers madness!

Posted by: Jordan48 | April 12, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

THANK GOD! She is so inept at her present job, (a perfect yes woman for obamanation tho) the Supreme court would be a mill grinding out Islamic law if she was sitting on the bench!

Posted by: Jordan48 | April 12, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh it's a bit conspiracy! Everyone knows the Obama wont win reelection in 2012. So the next big hope is Hillary. She can't run if she's on the court! Also I heard that the Obama administration has created this teen sensation called Justin Bieber to sign our youth into submission and into the new Obama Youth Corp!

Posted by: wehojoel | April 12, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Why would Hillary settle for the Supreme Court when she has a shot at being the Democratic nominee for President in 2012? Yes, 2012. By then Obama will be such a pariah the Dems may well dump him.

Posted by: Chippewa | April 12, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends upon the President's real reason for eliminating Clinton from consideration. My fear is that the President simply believes Clinton is not far enough to the left in her personal ideology.

Posted by: bubba31138 | April 12, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Good Grief, I hope not.

I was a strong Hillary supporter because she seemed trapped into supporting a lying fraud who needed impeachment.

What did she do again?
She threw her empowerment granted by us to support to a lying fraud who needs impeachment.

Hillary ended her career. People see what she supports clearly now, and wants nothing more from her.

Posted by: dottydo | April 12, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Korblut is a well known Clinton hater from way back when. She was accused, although never confessed, to embellishing stories, using supposed White House insiders in the Bush White House. She came from the New York Times when plagerizing and contriving pieces was commonplace amongst its writers. She was hired by the Post because of her public venomous attacks against Clinton during the primary. Please note the tone of the piece, which puts Clinton up as a Supreme Court Justice -- which is the first I heard of it -- just to be dismissive to Clinton. Pathetic piece.

Posted by: cayugabooks | April 12, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

When is the last time Hillary practiced law? It's been a long damn time. I can't believe her name has even come up. Don't democrats think that a supreme court justice should have some recent experience?

Posted by: AForgottenMan | April 12, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

When is the last time Hillary practiced law? It's been a long damn time. I can't believe her name has even come up. Don't democrats think that a supreme court justice should have some recent experience?

Posted by: AForgottenMan | April 12, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary doesn't seem to be a team player. If the other judges didn't let her decide everything, she wouldn't be happy.

Posted by: eldergent | April 12, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

after sotomayor

even napolitano would not be a surprise

as sotomayor

broke the incompetence barrier

at the Supreme Court

Posted by: praetorian-guard | April 12, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

after sotomayor

even napolitano would not be a surprise

as sotomayopr

broke the incompetence barrier

at the Supreme Court

Posted by: praetorian-guard | April 12, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

It might be different if they didn't have to wear robes and she could wear a pant suit....

Posted by: Geopolitics101 | April 12, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Bill would be more qualified than Hillary, though neither is a slouch in the brains department. Unfortunately, it would politicize the process in the extreme. Hopefully the relentless common sense and civility of this administration will wear down the idiots. I still believe in the audacity of hope and still support strongly Barack Obama.

Posted by: buddecj | April 12, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Whoever Obama picks, I'm sure it will polerize the country even more.

Posted by: farmsnorton | April 12, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

But how about Michelle Obama? She's certainly got the brights and the degrees.

Posted by: acboatman | April 12, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

This is outrageous! How date the president openly defy the will of Roger Ailes and his Fox flunkies? Give us back George Bush! At least he always did what Roger and Karl Rove told him to!!!

Posted by: rickedelson | April 12, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Ignore the rednecks in here Hillary. Prove them all wrong. Anything to free the supreme court from the right wing political action crew we now have. Remember these were the ones who decided Bush could be president in 2000. One of the worst days in US history.

Posted by: speckles1956 | April 12, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's see. Kate Gosselin is a celebrity (actress?), Hillary was a housewife, and Palin was a governor.

Hmm, I'd say Palin has the most qualifications (executive experience) of the three.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | April 12, 2010 5:31 PM
___________________

Ummm, let's see. Hillary was actually a U.S. Senator. Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska, the 47th largest state, with a population of 686,000, just a tad larger than the District of Columbia. So, under your logic, DC Mayor Fenty would be a viable candidate for President or Supreme Court.

Posted by: CNY-DC | April 12, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's see. Kate Gosselin is a celebrity (actress?), Hillary was a housewife, and Palin was a governor.

Hmm, I'd say Palin has the most qualifications (executive experience) of the three.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | April 12, 2010 5:31 PM
___________________

Ummm, let's see. Hillary was actually a U.S. Senator. Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska, the 47th largest state, with a population of 686,000, just a tad larger than the District of Columbia. So, under your logic, DC Mayor Fenty would be a viable candidate for President or Supreme Court.

Posted by: CNY-DC | April 12, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

How about Kate Gosselin? She's very popular and certainly as qualified to be a Supreme Court justice as Sarah Palin was to be Vice-President. And it would help with Freedom of Information: They could begin to finally start showing the Court proceedings on C-SPAN -- "Kate and the Eight."

(I just said this so the White House would have to call a press conference to let us know Kate is not being considered.)

Posted by: MikePeterson1 | April 12, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse
///////////////////////////////////////
Well, let's see. Kate Gosselin is a celebrity (actress?), Hillary was a housewife, and Palin was a governor.

Hmm, I'd say Palin has the most qualifications (executive experience) of the three.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | April 12, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

How about Kate Gosselin? She's very popular and certainly as qualified to be a Supreme Court justice as Sarah Palin was to be Vice-President. And it would help with Freedom of Information: They could begin to finally start showing the Court proceedings on C-SPAN -- "Kate and the Eight."

(I just said this so the White House would have to call a press conference to let us know Kate is not being considered.)

Posted by: MikePeterson1 | April 12, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

How about Kate Gosselin? She's very popular and certainly as qualified to be a Supreme Court justice as Sarah Palin was to be Vice-President. And it would help with Freedom of Information: They could begin to finally start showing the Court proceedings on C-SPAN -- "Kate and the Eight."

Posted by: MikePeterson1 | April 12, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Try telling Orrin Hatch that Hillary isn't a SCOTUS candidate. He seems to be under the opposite impression...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | April 12, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"What has she even attempted to accomplish as a lawyer? "

she was twice listed as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. She's a bit more accomplished that you think...

Posted by: lightgrw | April 12, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

A non-judge would definitely help broaden the scope of judicial decisions. There's a long precedent for this (many would argue that Warren did a great job with no prior bench experience). So Obama should pick a reliable progressive, someone who's got rich experience, and has no ambition for future political office.

I suggest that the nation, the court, and karma will be best served by nominating Al Gore. Let him sit on the same court with the activist justices who intervened to preempt his presidential bid.

While having Gore ruling on Bush-era policies' constitutionality would be delicious justice, more importantly, he might be an essential figure in reorienting the corporatist tilt of the current court. Limiting the power of Big Business should appeal to the populist mood on both the Left and Right. Of course, he'd have to divest himself of his invaluable Google shares first. Oh, and now that Stevens is leaving, Gore'd keep the all-important Protestant voice on the court. That should appeal to the religious right as well, right?

Posted by: CheeseDiaspora | April 12, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I think the White House is being wise here. The Clintons are very divisive, and this is a time the White House should be trying to bring this nation back together.

They are executing sound judgement this time, I think.

Besides, the only thing the Clintons see in the Bill of Rights is the right to have an abortion. Individual freedoms would fall like dominoes with Hillary tipping the court 5-4.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | April 12, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

The very idea of Hillary Clinton even being thought of as a candidate for the Supreme Court is nauseating.
What has she even attempted to accomplish as a lawyer? Real estate murkiness?

She's also not a real Secretary of State for the United States.

Hillary Clinton is simply the wife of a former president of the U.S.

Re: Napolitano....isn't she the one who said..."The system works" in the wake of the "Crotch Bomber"? Homeland Security is a good place to start with some discipline at our border with Mexico.

This whole Obama administration is a caricature of an American Presidential Administration.

Very sad for us Americans in our current deadly wartime situation.

Posted by: CharlesGriffith1 | April 12, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't think they should've ruled out anyone. Just let the speculation build.

Posted by: ATLGuy | April 12, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company