oversight or another example of the liberal media
 

Read the following story:
Supreme Court Justice Bill Clinton?
Posted: 11:52 AM ET


Would President Hillary name Bill to the Supreme Court?
WASHINGTON (CNN) — It is a title that would be sure to bring either fear or cheer to many Americans, depending on your political leanings: Supreme Court Justice Bill Clinton.

That provocative possibility has long been whispered in legal and political circles ever since Sen. Hillary Clinton became a viable candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Now a respected conservative law professor has openly predicted a future President Clinton would name her husband to the high court if a vacancy occurred.

Pepperdine Law School's Douglas Kmiec said, "The former president would be intrigued by court service and many would cheer him on."

Kmiec worked in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses as a top lawyer, but said he has no personal or political "disdain" for Bill Clinton.

CNN talked with several political and legal analysts of both ideological stripes, and while several laughed at the possibility, none would rule it out completely. And all those who spoke did so on background only.

There is precedent for such a nomination: William Howard Taft, who called his time as chief justice, from 1921 to 1930, the most rewarding of his career. He was president from 1909 to 1913

Note any FACTS missing - seems simple enough? I am just curious why they left out the FACT that Clinton was the ONLY president impeached during his presidency and the FACT that Clinton was disbarred for lying under oath. Good journalism would report the FACT that a criminal could be nominted for the supreme court. Am I a conservative nutbag? :smash:

It's a media inspired rumor. Same as Arnold running for president in 2012

Has there ever been a SCJ with disbarment on his record?

Kinda silly. There is no way he would get by the hearings.... and Hillary ain't gonna be President.

Media? I'd wager it was inspired by Rush Limbaugh or some other likemided pundit. More Clinton fearmongering...

I think the chances it would happen are pretty much zero. Qualifications aside, do you even seriously think Bill would want that job? Nope...

You're not a Conservative, just a nutbag :)

-spence

my point has been missed entirely

Got link?

CNN appears to be reporting based off an WSJ op-ed piece which brings the issue up in a very serious and concerned manner.

I guess it doesn't matter that the author was assistant AG to Reagan and Bush 41 :)

Looks like it's a novelty story and is being treated as such.

Perhaps you should be taking issue with the WSJ for such silly Clinton fear mongering?

-spence

I'll try again....

Lets say a local paper published an article on a prosepctive mayor and that if elected, the mayor would appoint her husband as the new dogcatcher. And if in the past the mayor's husband had once beaten a dog and been arrested for it, BUT, the paper did not mention that.
That would be lousy journalism, right?

My point has nothing to do with the subject of the article on Bill, My issue is that that it doesn not mention his impeachment or disbarrment (sp?), which is a major issue for a supreme court judge. I think the media reports on Bill as any other president, when in fact, he is a criminal.

What was Clinton ever convicted of?

He was impeached by the House, this is simply the leveling of charges against him. The Senate is required to vote to convict on those charges and in Clinton's case he was acquitted of those charges.

Perhaps if this was a serious article by CNN they would dive into additional detail, but as you've posted it's just a silly sort of "could it really happen" bit.

It would seem as though you're so obsessed with a "liberal media conspiracy" you just see what you want to see.

-spence

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[6]
In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign.

I was just asking the question, I would think it should mention some facts.

And so far you've offered up no facts that President Clinton is a criminal as you've asserted.

-spence

Yes, the piece I've already referenced. I read the Online version of the WSJ quite often and it's filled with little bits like this meant more to stir the pot than offer real arguments.

Would Justice Clinton be more liberal than Bush 41 appointed David Sutor? Probably not. Would he take Robert's seat? Probably not. Roberts is very well respected by the vast majority and has a legal mind far beyond that of President Clinton.

So what's the point again?

Oh yes, that a silly pot stirring piece was read by someone at CNN, and in writing a followup blog'esque ditty didn't happen to mention that President Clinton was a criminal (which he isn't) or air some of his dirty laundry on the record, as he left office with a 60%+ approval rating.

Shame on CNN.

-spence

Spence, help me with this one, simple yes an no answers please.

Is perjury breaking the law?
Is breaking the law a crime?
If you commit a crime are you are criminal?
Should we hold the highest position in the United States to higher standards than common people?