With the election behind us and the rhetoric replaced with endless analyses of what will happen with the fiscal cliff, it seems there's one pink elephant in the room of political discourse that seems to be off the radar screen of news organizations.
That is, What's Hillary Clinton going to do when she's no longer U.S. Secretary of State?
Of course with the rumor that President Bill Clinton may be appointed Ambassador to Ireland, there's always that...a supportive wife to the new ambassador.
Coincidental that Mrs. Clinton recently represented the U.S. in the Emerald Isle?
Maybe.
But notably absent are stories about what role Hillary Clinton might play in the future.
It's unlikely that she will go into retirement and travel with her husband should he get the post in Ireland, even if they both love the country.
I suggest there's a loftier and more cerebral role for Mrs. Clinton as she continues to blaze an impressive career path in her own right. She did it as First Lady. She did it when she became a presidential candidate. And she proved her leadership when she took the fall for the Benghazi fubar we heard during the 2012 presidential campaign. It was not President Obama's fault. It was her fault.
A brave and admirable gesture? Or maybe a pathway to an appointment on the U.S. Supreme Court.
But that's just a rumor. Unsubstantiated by anybody inside or outside of Washington.
Yet it would make complete sense, especially if you take into account the current makeup of the supreme court.
In his book The Next Justice, Christopher Eisgruber writes about the current composition of the supreme court, suggesting that the supreme court appointment process is broken, and the way to fix is to ask this single question of any potential appointee: "When and why is it beneficial for judges to trump the decision of elected officials?"
Certainly Hillary would have brilliant discourse on the subject. Look at her experience.
Couple with that an article written by University of Viriginia Professor of Law Kim Forde-Mazrui. As a guest blogger for Disability Power & Pride, his article, Next President's Supreme Court Appointments will Affect Employees with Disabilities, presents the view that conservatives generally are less supportive of employees claims surrounding disability issues, whereas liberals are more supportive of their claims.
He cites both Mr. Obama and Mr. Clinton as being more supportive of people with disabilities than Mr. Romney would be should he be elected.
Well, no worries there as we know how the election turned out.
Certainly Hillary would be on the same page as her husband and the president.
But despite rumors surrounding Hillary Clinton being considered for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, logic would seem to support that notion.
Who would be a better candidate to swing the court to a more liberal ideology at a time when the country seems to be making great strides towards gay rights, immigration reform, and matters affecting all women, such as pro-choice and job equality?
And let's not forget just how much both Hillary and Bill have done for the Obama White House. Surely that counts for something.
What better way for Hillary to remain true to her legal roots than to be among the chosen who interpret the law on a grand scale in this great land? And have a job for life!
As always, your comments are welcome.
Comments