Should President Obama nominate Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Supreme Court before he leaves office?

No.  Hillary is not licensed to practice law anymore but she was an attorney when the Clintons were in Arkansas.

Thrifty, if that was ever real (RIGHT that is going to happen)  could she say yes to a position like that and re-pass the bar?   Or does she have to be reinstanted beforehand?  I mean I KNOW that ordinarily  anyone would have to, but in this circumstance, can they allow for her to pass again after the fact?  I know this is a bad joke, I am sure she is not interested anyway, but I am wondering out loud. 

I'm not sure what it would take for her to reinstate her license in Arkansas.  I think I read it lapsed in 2002.  She might have to take the bar exam there to be reinstated, and perhaps 15 years worth of continuing ed.  She also would have to take the exam if she wished to practice in any other state.  Some states require state-law education if one wishes to be examined and  admitted to their bar.

She wouldn't have to there are no requirements to be on the SCOTUS. 

I already told Jakob it isn't a requirement.

Actually there are no minimum requirements for SCOTUS...just have to be approved by Senate. No law degree, no experience, not even citizenship required... nothing. This post was edited by my2cents at December 21, 2016 6:30 AM MST

Thank you for clarifying that :) I did rather wonder what the colonists used for judges when such was needed.

I don't know. What they used to determine confirmation....I know there have been SCOTUS members who were never a judge before but all had law degrees or the equivalent there of. 

I'm with you, that's all we need is a corrupt supreme court.

@TT -- I assume then you'll be calling for the impeachment of Clarance Thomas because of his previous ties to Monsanto Corp. before his appointment to the SCOTUS, right?

No? Didn't think so...;-D...

RWAF hypocrites are amazingly predictable..;-D...

@m2c -- Actually, there IS a plauable scenario where she could be confirmed (Note: that doesn't mean I'm advocating for it).

Apparently, when the Senate first meets in 2017, the first order of business is to swear in the newly-(re)elected Senators. But that is a CHOICE of the Senate. If the body chose to, it could do OTHER business and THEN swear in the newcomers.

Without the recently elected Senators sworn in, the Democrats actually possess a majority in the Senate and COULD vote to approve a SCOTUS nominee. Some have proposed the Senate do so to appoint Merrick Garland but similar procedures could be employed to appoint HRC.

I don't think it will happen and I wouldn't support the move, but it's a theoretical possibility.

Then why have they not voted and confirmed Garland? If they could that for Clinton they could have already done it for Garland.

The Republicans have had control of the Senate since 2014. This post was edited by my2cents at December 21, 2016 6:39 AM MST

@m2c -- Because in 2016 the GOP controls the Senate. It's only in the interregnum between 2016 and the swearing in of all Senators in 2017 that the Democrats (briefly) hold a majority.

Actually no they don't. The new Senators term begins at the same time the leaving Senator's term ends. According to the 20th Amendment to the Constitution: 
The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.


By custom, Congress convenes on January 3 of odd years to begin a new congressional term. By law, however, the term of duly elected senators within a particular class begins precisely at noon on January 3. The terms for new senators begin at the precise moment the terms for the previous senators expires. The 2016 class of the U.S. Senate consists of 34 senators. They become senators not at the whims of Joe Biden or Dick Durbin, but by the combined authority of the U.S. Constitution and the voters who elected them to office. 

@m2c -- We may both be correct. The Constitution sets out the general framework, but a great deal of day-to-day business of Congress is left up to Congress to determine how it will operate.

I don't think the Democrat Senators would attempt the order-of-business trick to put HRC or Garland on the SCOTUS, so it's overwhelmingly likely a moot point.

Also, even if HRC wanted it and it could be done, I think the Democrats would rather nominate a younger person who would serve on the court for longer than the 5-10 years HRC would.

This brings up another salient point.  Her qualifications.   She would do the JOB effectively.    Imagine Trump being considered for this position?  I don't think he could even handle being a State Representative without wreaking havoc.  Now he is running the place.  God save us all.