conservatism cannot be stopped. as a country loses its wealth and moves towards a type of second world country which america is doing at a rapid pace the country becomes more and more conservative.

ie hang on to what they have. fear sits in as it is doing now and people become very selfish.

must go through that phase of american life before real change occurs to a more universal look on our caring for all of our people and not just corp oriented. ie reagan economics.

it was in progress reagan just sped up the process. this change is right on track but of course americans are in denial but denial is part of the change process.

the perfection of karma in action. capitalism must self destuct not based on love but greed.

karma is a beautiful thing to watch in action as it teaches its lessons in life but very sad and frustrating to the ego.

when you love your country and see this self destruction it is hard on the ego. very hard my frustrations (ego) are vented here often.

the end result of all this. the middle class is history for several decades or more or even for hundreds of years.

sorry not a nice outlook but that is the price of imperialism and greed.

oh the fruits of capitalism.

"with communism man exploits man with capitalism it is the other way around."

Age is not the issue here. Clinton is nowhere near qualified to be on the Supreme Court. She is not a judge, she is not a law professor, she hasn't even practiced law in decades. Waste no more space on this bit of gossip.

I think she is a fabulous pick for SCOTUS -- she has much better judgment on her own than in political compromise. She'd be a progressive force to be reckoned with and it would get her out of the way of Obama. Neal Katyal is a terrible choice. He has a real conservative streak and an ego to boot. Knowing the man fairly well, I predict he would go extremely conservative as he aged, especially on criminal justice issues. Hillary, on the other hand, would go more liberal.

Whoa--this is wrongly assuming that the US Supreme Court is more than merely the Twisted Legal Arm of the Brazen Hatchet Men...

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the peple can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Herman Goering

"We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country." Sandra Day O'Connor

"The fearful atmosphere that hangs over the West is also the ideal opportunity to ram through measures that have met severe popular opposition for a long time."

"The Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill calls the American tax policy an 'abomination' and considers eliminating all taxes for corporations and abolishing Social Security and Medicare. 'National defense is a federal responsibility, but all other outlays need review.'"

"Robert Zoellick, the American trade representative has propagated sppeches and writings praising the benefits of the Fast Track bill that would permit the president to negotiate and ratify trade agreeements without Congressional (that is, democratic) interference. He guarantees that imposing this dictatorial economic policy is one of the best ways to fight terrorism. The bill passed Congress ..."

"The role of the press in this time of crisis was clearly defined by White House spokesman Ari Fleicher when he said that, 'they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do.'"

"The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and try to sell the country for his daily bread. You know and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." John Swinton (New York Times editor, from a speech to the New York Press Club, 1953)

"The first successful American experiment of institutional propaganda began before the First World War, when the Commission on Public Information was created to persuade the most pacifist American people to enter the war. Its success was amazing. ... Edward Bernays, another member of the Commission, concluded in 1925 that it was now possible to 'regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies.'"

"Many key sectors have hired PR firms after September 11th: ... As one Pentagon official explains: 'we are clearly losing the "hearts and minds' issue". The specialists of manipulation and control of this field therefore have to intervene. The herd's minds have to be kept on track."

"Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman, or child is likely to be displaced, torutred, killed, or 'disappeared', at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame." / "The U.S.A. has supplied arms, security equipment and training to governments and armed groups that have committed torture, political killings and other human rights abuses in countries around the world." Amnesty International, 1996, 1998

"First of all we have to put this in its context and remember that the terrorists of Afghanistan are an American creation. ... Benazir Bhutto, the president of Pakistan at the time, had warned the father of Bush: "You have created a Frankenstein's monster".

"Professor of law, Michael Mandel, specializing in international criminal law, explains that 'From the legal point of view, this war is illegal. Of course, it's also immoral and it won't prevent terrorism. The war is illegal because it's a flgrant violation of the express words of the Charter of the United Nations. In fact, it's not only illegal, it's criminal. ... John Bolton, the new assistant of Secretary of State Colin Powell, illustrates it plainly: 'International law doesn't exist'."

"In the eighties, the United States launched their first official war on terrorism, with the aim of 'cutting out the cancer' represented by the 'depraved opponents to civilisation itself' consisting essentially of Central Americans... In that first war, the US attacked Nicaragua, killing about fifty thousand people ... Not understanding that this operation was carried out to 'promote democracy', Nicaragua went to the International Court of Justice. The court judges in favor of Nicaragua, rejected the US claim of 'self-defense', ordered them to cease th e'illegal use of force' and to pay significant reparations. The United States answered by refusing future jurisdiction of the court, and by intensifying the attack. The United States is now the only country in the world that has been condemned for international terrorism by an international court, and it has rejected the court's judgement as well as pertinent UN resolutions. Ironic to know that the US is now leading an international coalition against terrorism. This failure of the legal process is merely the consequence of the natural laws of power."

The above from Background and Shockwaves of 9-11, An Orwellian Nightmare, by Biorn Ivemark, 02/05/02.

In other words, seating someone on the U.S. Supreme Court is "merely the consequence of the natural laws of power."

Zach, don't forget that Justice Warren was a politician before he was a Justice. It's not at all unheard of. She is plenty smart for the job. It's not like legal reasoning is rocket science.

Lucy,

Earl Warren was a district attorney and then California's attorney general. He had legal chops. Clinton does not. She never did litigation, and hasn't practiced law in over a quarter of a century. And Warren was nominated 55 years ago, when the Supreme Court (and the federal government generally) was a different institution.

And you are right, legal reasoning is not rocket science, but it isn't media relations, opinion polling, and horsetrading, either. At the SCOTUS level, you need to have only the best of the best. That means people who have practiced at a high level, been constitutional law scholars, or held relevant judicial posts--ideally, all three. The Supreme Court is legitimated by the fact that it comprised of generally apolitical archtechnocrats--NOT of controversial public figures.

I'm shocked that people are even talking about this.

Age wouldn't be an issue if Clinton were the right candidate. Clearly she is not, for a variety of reasons, but if she were a powerful voice and an esteemed scholar, she would certainly have time enough on the court to create a legacy, not only in court rulings but in the leadership and influence she could exert on other members of the court. The simple fact is that Clinton is not that person.

John Edwards--->Attorney General---->SCOTUS(once there is a vacancy).

So John Edwards is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton? How do you figure? I am still not convinced that Clinton is so woefully inexperienced legally or for "other reasons" (what other reasons?) that she could not honorably and effectively serve the court. After the election is over and her negative press dies down she will be a fine choice. And this is coming from someone who has never considered voting for her for president.

And, you are wasting your time writing articles about picking out Supreme Court nominations for a person who has (a) not yet won the Democrat nomination and (b) due to his left of left roots and connections to some of the most radical and hate-filled elements in society, who would lose to Elmer Fudd in a general election, because???...

AH GEEZE LOUISE!!!

ZACK--you're yankin' real hard on my string here...:

"The Supreme Court is legitimated by the fact that it comprised of generally apolitical archtechnocrats--NOT of controversial public figures."

Just kidding..., but in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police the Supreme Court held that:

"Section 1983 provides a federal forum to remedy many deprivations of civil liberties, but it does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties. The Eleventh Amendment bars such suits unless the State has waived its immunity."

Actually, a plain reading of the Eleventh Amendment upholds such lawsuits:

"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens of a foreign state."

And..., Justice Brennen dissented:

"One might expect that this statutory question would generate a careful and thorough analysis of the language, legislative history, and general background of 1983. If this is what one expects, however, one will be disappointed by today's decision. For this case is not decided on the basis of our ordinary method of statory construction; instead, the Court disposes of it by means of various rules of statutory interpretation that it summons to its aid each time the question looks close."

Yes, Hillary is deceitful as all Hell--she's very corrupt--but does anyone truly think her capable of such ultimately sophisticated shenanigans...

A State's right to waive its immunity translates into the fact that this law will never successfully be challenged in court; if faced with a high-powered legal team, the State need merely cede its immunity...

...What was Congress so afraid of in the first place? Why not simply come right out and decree--in clear language--that federal lawsuits may not be brought against a State?

GO FIGURE: If Congress wasn't worried about States enjoying blanket immunity--with all deprivations of civil liberties cloaked--well then weren't they making a huge mistake???!!!

Instead of protecting our States' sovereign immunity (from "mortal" attacks on its treasury) by banning all such lawsuits, why not simply impose pratical liability caps...

Mike Wagner--

I'm not trying to paint SCOTUS as an infallible institution, I'm simply saying that the only reason that people have respect for the court is because it appears to be and endeavors to be a technocratic body. Are there liberal and conservative influences on the Court? Yes, absolutely. But they stem more from ideology than politics.

Accordingly, it makes sense to search for potential new members of the Court in certain sectors of academia, the judiciary, and appellate practice, as it is critical to preserve the Court's capacity to comprehend and decide high-level legal questions in a manner consistent with the concepts of fairness and justice on which its immense power depends. The moment you start packing the Court with politicians is the moment it stops even aspiring to impartiality and instead becomes a supra-legislative non-democratic institution of dubious legitimacy.

Though I absolutely agree with you--Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police is, in my opinion, wrongly decided. It's been a while since I've read or thought about it, though.

Well apparently someone missed my point with WILL--it's like with the ACLU and its futile report National Security Whistleblowers Risk Everything to Shine Light on Government Misconduct...

Where I'm so "impressed" with the decision in Will--is the part where the law will never be changed because, if threatened, a State can waive immunity--YES, what genius...!!!

...And the two tie together as we're stuck with these "blanket immunities; yet the ACLU doesn't do squat (a real 'man the baracades" issue like this...???, like in revealing traitors...)...!!!

"Meanwhile, senior FBI officials took concerted steps to retaliate against German for blowing the whistle. Overlooking his previous success, the Unit Chief of the Undercover Unit at FBI Headquarters told his staff that German would 'never work undercover again.' When an agent working an unrelated terrorism case attempted to use German in an undercover role, he was prevented from pursuing the investigation for ALMOST A YEAR BECAUSE FBI HEADQUARTERS REFUSED TO SUBMIT THE CASE FOR APPROVAL. A SECOND TERRORISM INVESTIGATION WAS ALLOWED TO WITHER ON THE VINE ALL FOR THE SAKE OF PUNISHING GERMAN FOR WHISTLEBLOWING," from the ACLU report.

Oh right--"Maybe you've learned about a surveillance program that violates the law and the Constitution," ACLU.

Or maybe it's a State (the local D.A.) that's violating Federal Civil Rights law and "dismissing" your rights...

Somehow..., it all seems to me a little more like concerted efforts to "stiff us" rather than merely "a disagreeable decision..."

Actually..., punitive damages are not allowed against the federal government, and maybe this would be the ticket in lawsuits naming a State...

The problem with having a cap to damages payments is that, sans the official investigation..., this is sort of like a license to wreak havoc (though much better than banning such suits...)...

I have been behind Obama from the start, but I will be thinking twice if Hillary or Edwards would have anything to do with his administration. At least in a VP o supreme court position.

I agree - I think the Hillary as VP talk is really a bad idea. It'll just come off as a tag-team for votes and after all the Hillary camp negativity, it would seem less than genuine. Of course, insincere is what I've come to expect from her.

While it kind of boggles the mind to think of Ms. Clinton on the Supreme Court, I see no problem with her being somewhere in the Cabinet. Surely she would be more than capable there, but would she really want to give up her Senate seat to do that? It seems to me that being a senator would give her more power and control than being anything except maybe attorney general or secretary of state.

As to Neal Katyal -what does his being a "total stud" have to do with anything? I find that comment demeaning. As a woman, I also find it sad that another woman would stoop to the very things we don't want men doing - i.e. commenting and judging on appearance. Please leave your shallow value judgments off Mother Jones.

Congratulations, Stephanie. Just when I thought you Obama zealots couldn't possibly sink any lower into your juvenile, vitriolic morass of hatred for Hillary Clinton you toss yet another misogynistic log onto the fire that will destroy the Democratic Party's chance of re-taking the White House this year. Your mother must be so proud. Oh, but then she's probably too old to matter anymore - right?

I'm with Zack above. This idle gossip is big old steaming pile ridiculous idiocy. And, Hillary's length of tooth has the least to do with her numerous and valid disqualifications.

Let's just tell the truth and shame the devil. Billary hasn't been a corporate shark in the WalMart legal pool in decades. She's barely passed meaningful legislation in the Senate on behalf of the Empire State, which is mortified by her most recent demonstrations of electile desperation. She's got to know that even with the Hillogical new math, she statistically hasn't a snowball's chance in a tropical July of getting the nomination.

These days, post-boob-flashing Billary is holding out the audacity of hope that the DNC will agree to settle her campaign debts so she can at least recoup her loans-to-self. The problem is she's pissing in Obama's end of the pool with the elephantile sense of entitlement that assures her these 'tests' of the Illionois Senator's electability will effect her desired results via political duress. The negative impact from these conniving stunts to her campaign and image, however, is that fewer and fewer Democratic voters are buying what the Clintons are selling. In 2010, Moynehan is going to escort her off the Senate floor, per the disappointed powers that be in Albany, New York.

Not a bad idea. A couple weeks of Hillary on the court and I bet the rest of the justices would sign those resignations so fast they'd get pencil burns. Only problem, how to find anyone else willing to serve.

Good, cogent, succinct article. Hilary might well make a good kick-ass nominee for the Supreme Court, though her ever more fervid support for the war troubles me, but the next president (Obama, to make the things I'm writing come true) needs to appoint young, progressive, activist judges who are troubled by things like the abrogation of powers to the President in the name of "homeland secury", with each President getting more and more powers once the power of both the house and the Senate. Does anyone remember what happened to right of habeas corpus, for instance? Gone, if the President wants to come into your state, and declare him/herself the military commander of that state for reasons of National Security, State of Emergency (read: Katrina), or other reasons. All of those scare me but esp. those last undefined "other reasons." What about the evermore tightening restrictions against unionizing in the workplace? You can't just hold a meeting to discuss whether or not you want to unionize anymore. Apparently that can get you into big legal trouble with your employer. Now it has to be down by secret ballot. !!! And it is getting harder and harder to get an abortion anymore. Now they're trying to pass a bill forcing a woman to see her "baby" by sonagram or ultrasound first before she can have the abortion. Does any of this frighten you, esp. women? If not, it should. Our rights are steadily being stripped from us and NO-ONE'S TALKING ABOUT IT! We need young Supreme Court appointees who will see this and fight to regain our rights where needed and fight the erosion of our rights where needed. This will take a long time over several presidents, and he/she needs to be willing to dig his/her heels in and be stubborn about his/her positions! And I believe Obama can nominate such appointees! And ,yet, some of our most progressive judges have appointed by some of most reactionary of Presidents!

Too old ? Hillary ?

What a crock of [deleted].

I think this post is right on “target”.