ugh.

Clinton is not Novice Maria, a problem in need of solving.

These posts are as dismissive as they would be if they were trying to "fix" Obama's future for him.

Wasn't Earl Warren a career politician?

Also, wouldn't she have to recuse herself if stuff came before the court about/during the Clinton administration?

Why is the *mere* appearance of being apolitical a good thing? Given that the court is politicized, much better for people to realize it. Then we can combat the silly notion that politics and ideology should play no role in confirmation hearings.

I'd like to see it just to see the right freak the eph out.

Trial date in Paul vs. Clinton to be set on Friday

Posted 21 hours, 24 minutes
A status conference hearing is scheduled for Friday, April 25, 2008, in Los Angeles California, to finally set a trial date in Paul vs. Clinton.

California Superior Judge Aurelio N. Munoz delayed setting a trial date back in February, but is scheduled to set a trial date this Friday.

Judge Munoz ruled back in February that Paul's legal team can begin seeking depositions from a host of big names – including Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, along with an A-list of Hollywood celebrities that allegedly were witnesses to an effort by the Clintons and top Democratic leaders to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up. Discovery in the trial is expected to start in May.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

The complaint says Bill Clinton promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for an August 2000 Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul's attorney Colette Wilson has stated there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

The complaint also asserts that Senator Clinton filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul's donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.

Senator Clinton was dismissed from the case as a defendant, but Munoz already has made it clear he won't accept any attempts to block Senator Clinton from serving as a material witness. The judge told Clinton's lawyer David Kendall: "Well, any opposition is probably going to be dead on arrival, if that will – if you understand what I'm saying, Mr. Kendall."

DOJ Prosecutor Dan Schwaber told a jury in May, 2005 at the trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen, that it was a crime “to deny the public’s right to know that Peter Paul personally gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary’s national campaign”.

Paul has outlined the entire case in a one hour documentary entitled, Hillary Uncensored, Banned by the Media.

Although Paul is a three time convicted felon, he has passed a lie detector's test in answering questions as to whether there was an agreement made for Stan Lee Media to hire Bill Clinton once he left the White House. Paul also claims he has several hours of home video of Senator Clinton, and states, "her own words will indict her".

How much longer will the media continue to cover-up this case for Senator Clinton and deny the voters right to know about this trial?

If Barack Obama or the media doesn't begin to ask questions about the upcoming Peter Paul trial, and the four false FEC reports that were filed, John McCain and the GOP will.

Peter Paul has set up a website PaulvClinton which will report the trial date, and news and information in the trial as it happens. You can sign up to receive e-mails of news in the trial as it happens. (You can also read Peter Paul's blog at Peter F. Paul.com for information on this case).

Note: To verify this upcoming trial: you can go to http: www.lasuperiorcourt.org

Choose Civil - then Case Summary - type in the Case # BC 304174

PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
Filing Date: 10/14/2003

Clinton's too old for the Supreme Court. We need our liberal picks to drag out life tenure as long as possible.

We need our liberal picks to drag out life tenure as long as possible.

Even better, we need our liberal picks to be liberal.

Yes, Earl Warren was a career politician (governor of California and widely viewed as a front runner for the 1952 Republican presidential nomination until Eisenhower declared himself a Republican). And Taft was named chief justice after serving as president. There would be nothing terribly ground breaking about naming HRC to the court.

So appearance counts for everything! No wonder our political process is so screwed up! Now we should pretend things aren't what they are, which is what we have been accusing the right wingers of all along!

Argh! argh!

I suppose this might fly if we have a filibuster-proof majority. Maybe.

But why have the fight? Wouldn't it be better to have someone who doesn't already polarize the country - who could advance liberal principles in a way more likely to get a hearing, or at least, not face a strong presumption that every decision she handed down was political?

O'Connor was a pol too.

TedL, I think you are being a little bit naïve. Any liberal whom the Democrats nominate to the Supreme Court will be "defined" by the right-wing slime machine in 10 seconds flat.

Aw, that's downright neighborly of you, helping the GOP direct-mailers back onto their feet.

Ben and Christmas are both right, but particularly Ben at 2:02.

HRC is ten years older than John Roberts. I want a liberal who's under 50.

Also, to Ben Rosengart: you're sweeping too broadly. The GOP will try to slime any liberal we nominate, but the point is to nominate someone who will make it harder for the charges to stick. The Justice Sunday Dobsonite fringers can and will believe what they like - we just need someone with a sufficiently bland resume that the moderate Republicans will grudgingly decline to support a filibuster.

And HRC is precisely wrong for that for exactly the reason she's always been precisely wrong for the presidential nomination: she's a centrist who's viewed as a liberal. What we need is precisely the opposite both to ensure confirmability and also, as Christmas reminds us, to get a damn liberal on the Court for once.

Today's all-former-judge court is an anomaly. We could use some politicians with real legislative experience.

And HRC is precisely wrong for that for exactly the reason she's always been precisely wrong for the presidential nomination: she's a centrist who's viewed as a liberal.

This is what makes HRC perfect as a Harriet Miers-style proposed-and-then-withdrawn SCOTUS pick: "Oh, you don't like HRC? Then here's someone else that you cannot object to!"

Most of this has been noted upthread:

1) Clinton is too old for this lifetime spot. Roberts was about 50; Thomas was 40. Both will be working to achieve the middle ages for decades. We need someone working for progressive goals just as long.

2) Speaking of which, Clinton is not a liberal and does not have progressive goals. S consistently begins debates by conceding the right wing's framing, and then the only question is whether she'll nonetheless work to obstruct them or actually embrace the right wing's goals. The exceptions - those positions where she might claim some progressive credibility (principally access to health care) - are mostly issues for the legislature, not the courts.

3) It's bad enough that the justices are increasingly partisan and predictable. Should they actually arrive labelled with their party affiliation, known for the bitterness of their partisan struggles? Think how well this has worked with Clarence Thomas, whose recent book tour revealed incredible depths of vitriol aimed at those groups he felt opposed his nomination.

4) She was never a judge, nor clerked for one, but even considered as a person who embarked on a career in politics rather than the judiciary, she is poorly qualified. She hasn't shown leadership on or even interest in relevant issues in the Senate or as first lady; indeed, her relevant experience in the Senate is the flag burning amendment and a reluctance to restrict Executive Power abuse by Dubya, and her husband's White House had what was then seen as an expansive view of Executive Power and Privilege.

5) The other prominent non-judicial path to the bench is as a practitioner or theoretician of the law, and again Clinton is not a strong candidate. When a law student and when just out of law school, Senator Clinton began an initially stellar career, writing law review articles, advising the Watergate committee, and working for the CDF. But all that was over within a very few years. After that, she failed the DC Bar Exam and worked for fifteen years as an undistinguished commercial and corporate lawyer in Arkansas, she has so far as I know never tried an important case, and she has not practiced law, written about legal issues for the last fifteen years (or even taken important stands; see point 4).

There are strong arguments to be made for Hillary Clinton the Politician. But not for Hillary Clinton the Supreme Court Justice.

There is an argument that the Supreme Court needs justices with a different sort of pedigree at this point. Former appellate justices are all well and good, but it's hardly necessary for all or most of them to be of that stripe. Being an appellate judge, or even a trial judge, is a rarefying experience, and most of these people have been judges for a long time.

Earl Warren, of course, is the prime example -- and many people believe that his experience of being governor of California, and the man who was basically responsible for enforcing Japanese internment in the U.S., directly shaped his subsequent commitment to due process and civil rights. He viscerally understood how political considerations can undermine individual rights in times of distress, and thus how important it was for judges to stand up and do their job. But ironically, as I understood it, CJ was his prize for not running for president against Eisenhower.

No idea how Clinton might do, but my guess is that she'd do well enough. Most judges are smart enough and a few are brilliant, but the hardest thing about being a judge is exercising judgment.

Actually, a historically-based argument can be made that what the Court now lacks are 1)justices with political experience (like Earl Warren, or Hugo Black) and justices with honest courtroom experience (the last great litigator on the court was Thurgood Marshall).

Right now, the justices tend to have neither type of experience, and apart from ridiculous right-wing drift of the Court, the lack of practical grounding in either political or courtroom reality is a real problem.