-
While much of the country trains its eyes on South Dakota and Montana tomorrow, California voters also will go to the polls.
According to my 23-page "Official Voter Information Guide" and my 40-page "Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet," I'm to choose candidates for four partisan offices (ranging from Congress to county committee) and two nonpartisan offices (judge and county supervisor). Then I'm to ponder two competing state ballot propositions (Ban eminent domain? Or not?), and one county ballot measure (Taxes, anyone?). Missing, for the first quadrennial year in memory, is a choice among candidates for president. It's thus as good a time as any to ask whether moving the presidential primary up to Feb. 5 was a good idea.
For the GOP, it might've been a smart political move. Sen. John McCain trounced his competitors in California that day, and he clinched the nomination not long afterward. The Democrats are another story. Sen. Hillary Clinton won by eight points, but victory in California did not deliver her the nomination. What's more, in the interim four months, Californians changed their mind: Were the election held now, polling indicates, Sen. Barack Obama would carry California by 13 points. For Democrats at least, California's primary once again seems not to matter.
But forget politics for a moment. It cost at least $51 million to hold that early, extra primary. How many California taxpayers do you suppose would say it was worth the expense?
-
With all this talk of the possibility of Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the most obvious precedent for it. Not so long ago, a former U.S. senator and a loyal Democrat was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Like Hillary, he was born in the Midwest and had studied law at Yale. Like Hillary, he had been considered a rising Senate star. Like Hillary, he was widely admired for his interpersonal skills.
That justice was, of course, Sherman Minton. (Crickets chirping...)
-
There's no question but that a President Obama would have to find an attractive position for Mrs. Clinton other than the vice presidency. The problem with the vice presidency is, of course, Bill. Absent a Lincolnian desire for a team of rivals, the former president's presence hanging about the West Wing vice-presidential office would greatly complicate executive decision-making.
So some now suggest the Supreme Court. Bracketing the effect on the court of Mrs. Clinton's appointment, the problem with the judicial post is that it doesn't solve Sen. Obama's immediate problem—allowing Mrs. Clinton the opportunity to exit the electoral stage with a prize in hand that reaffirms the achievement of women. It is unseemly to use court appointments quite this brazenly, and the glass ceiling has already shattered upon the O'Connor and Ginsburg heads. Finally, it is not self-evident why Mrs. Clinton would trade life in the highly visible, political lane for the cloister. It would be more likely to suppose that Mrs. Clinton would desire to be Senate majority leader or the secretary of health and human services in order to single-mindedly pursue her health care reform.
That said, a Clinton on the court has been speculated about before. Back when Mrs. Clinton was the likely nominee, I wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal suggesting that were Mrs. Clinton to become president, she herself would have had to extricate her husband from the executive branch and a plausible place to put him might be on the Supreme Court bench.
William Howard Taft found the court far more attractive than the presidency itself. Taft was able to shape not just judicial doctrine, but by virtue of his network of friends as the former chief executive, he had considerable influence over the appointments to not only the Supreme Court but the lower federal courts. Mrs. Clinton would like that, too.
James Andrew Miller, who writes about the possibility of nominating Mrs. Clinton to the High Court in today's Washington Post, suggests that Mrs. Clinton's policy and political perspectives would recommend her strongly to a President Obama. Perhaps. By virtue of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement and her outspoken advocacy for a female replacement, whether it's McCain or Obama who is the next president, a female nominee for the court is highly likely. While the apointment would not be a "first," a Justice Hillary Clinton would not be without contemporary significance and effect. Her appointment from elective office, in itself, diversifies the bench in ways that others recommend, even as Eric Posner thoughtfully questions whether it is right to see the court as a third policy apparatus, rather than as a body doing narrowly focused legal work.
Mrs. Clinton's far more legally gregarious perspective would be a counterpoint to the Chief Justice's minimalism, and she would likely galvanize the overly hypothetical Breyer/Ginsburg/Souter wing. All pretty exciting for her. All equally frightening for Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. Dizzying for Justice Kennedy.
The GOP, one suspects, will discover newfound respect for the judicial filibuster, which would complicate Mrs. Clinton's confirmation, as Dahlia suggests. But then, will the GOP have 40 seats in the Senate? And who knows what Minority Leader McCain, whose term runs through 2010, might negotiate as part of a reconstituted gang of 14.
-
Jack and Phil: I find the notion of an easy confirmation for the future Justice Hillary Clinton improbable if not impossible for the reasons Jack suggests: The conservative base cares about the judiciary above all. They’d fight even the next moderate, nerdy, and dull nominee to the death. But a lifelong liberal political activist? An effective dealmaker and horse-trader in the model of Bill Brennan or Sandra Day O’Connor? A Clinton?
And given that modern confirmation hearings have everything to do with overturning ancient trash cans, how long would Sen. Clinton’s hearing stretch on? A month? Three? It would certainly be great fun for the folks who believed the Starr Report was a little too thin on the lurid details ...
-
Jack, thanks for flagging James Andrew Miller's op-ed recommending Hillary Clinton for SCOTUS. I admit it's an intriguing idea, but I think Miller misses the most important argument for Hillary when he writes, "The fact that she hasn't served on a bench before would be inconsequential, considering her experience in law and in government." In fact, Hillary's political experience would be incredibly valuable on the high court. In many ways, she could be an heir to the legacy of Earl Warren and Sandra Day O'Connor, who came to the court after decades of experience in elected and public office. As you note, this used to be quite commonplace, with many justices coming to the court after a career in elected politics. Their experience in the political branches of the government added to their work on the bench and a valuable understanding of how politics actually works.
Will Hillary be next?
-
David, you ask whether Obama or Clinton will reply to McCain's attack on those beloved bugaboos, activist judges, and, if so, what they should say. I agree, Doug, that throwing the "activist" insult back at Alito and Roberts, as Howard Dean did, is lame. Based on the Obama and Clinton campaigns' responses to my own efforts to report on the candidates' views on appointing judges, and Charlie Savage's, I'd say that each of them if nominated will come up with a decent response. Many of the moving parts are there: concern about executive overreaching, Guantanamo, police power run amok, employee rights, women's rights, the promise of equal protection, a general sense that courts should at times be a refuge for the disadvantaged. What I fear is that the Democratic candidate won't figure out how to make the composition of the courts a rallying cry in the way that McCain is already doing. Republicans are just mostly better at this. Their voters get what's at stake. I'm not sure what it would take for Obama or Clinton to get the same kind of purchase. Thoughts?
In the Philadelphia debate last month, I liked the substance of Obama's answer about the D.C. guns case: He likened the relationship between gun regulation and the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment to zoning ordinances and the protection against takings in the Fifth Amendment—in other words, you can have a constitutional right, and the state can also set reasonable limits on that right. I was annoyed, though, that both he and Clinton made a point of not taking a position on the merits of the case. They said they hadn't read the briefs. Please. Whoever is nominated had better figure out a good response to the court's ruling on the D.C. gun ban when it comes down in June. Because whatever the ruling, it has the potential to make trouble for the Democratic candidate and to make hay for McCain.
-
Sen. Clinton may or may not be the next Democratic nominee for president. But her candidacy represents to many voters a positive statement in favor of gender equality.
I've cast my lot with Sen. Obama, but if he fails to cross the finish line, I bet it will have less to do with the overheated statements of his pastor or his bowling than with the fact that—however much the Clintons together generate suspicion or should be eliminated on the democratic (small “d”) “no second rides” theory—Mrs. Clinton is still, well, a woman and more than a few citizens (myself included) think having a woman president long overdue.
Why overdue?
Because, frankly, I have three daughters among my five children and it would be salutary if they would be less subject than my wife’s generation to arbitrary gender-based impediments as they reach toward their aspirations. For more than 30 years now, I’ve watched highly talented women law graduates face the same overly rigid law-firm and corporate structure that somehow pretends not to know that many (not all) women have a desire to both practice their chosen profession and parent. I’m all for the free market, but the market has been treating families as if they were a free good, and just as “the tragedy of the commons” despoils the commonly held air and water, corporate elevation of its bottom line over family well-being shortchanges the family—and us all.
Men, of course, too often silently shrug this off as if it were none of their business, perhaps even thinking again silently (since openly would yield a cold stare or litigation) that gender-based distinctions are not arbitrary impediments at all but simply the rational economic calculus applied. Of course, we men know it's darn hard to do parenting and professional work at the same time, which is, of course, why most of us don’t attempt it. So it came as no surprise when, lo and behold, a recent Canadian study by Jean E. Wallace and Marisa C. Young proved the obvious that women with children are less “productive” than women without children.
As I indicate in additional commentary on this study, and as Emily Bazelon has noted, “productive” is in scare quotes because the study measured productivity in accordance with the dreaded billable hour, which persists in making law practice a modern form of well-paid slavery, rather than service—which, digressing just for a moment, the practice might have a chance of becoming yet again were flat or contingent fees the more standard means of law-firm accounting. In any event, apart from the severe damage the billable hour does to the sheer enjoyment of legal work, it is not a perfect measure of productivity, since obviously some people can get a lot more done in a small amount of time than others, and women are often superb multi-taskers.
Confirming as it does that we men are not particularly helpful when it comes to making the family-work balance possible, it’s tempting to hide the Canadian study under the rug. That's not to say that husbands don't lend moral support to our personal spouse's effort at not forgetting those grueling years of law, business or medical training as she is singing the alphabet song for the 15th time or is driven to the edge by the "see and say" machine. Some men—especially guests on Oprah—do this and more. It's just that—if we're honest—kicking doors open for women generally at the office has not been high on our to-do list—what with foreign outsourcing and all. In fact, according to the Canadians, men may be giving family-friendly benefits a bad name. Things like flexible hours were found to have a negative impact on a man's productivity while working at odd hours didn't affect a woman's productivity one whit. Men, it seems, tend to use these flexible hours to goof off, while women use them to finish drafting the merger agreement while waiting interminably in the doctor's waiting room. Second, men with babies at home work overtime. Go figure. Third, even when men attempt to do more of the parenting, they're not that very good at it. The study found that men who have a stay-at-home partner get a lot done, whereas women who have stay-at-home husbands don't receive any particular advantage from it.
None of this is particularly encouraging for those of us who believe the workplace—still dominated by men, of course—has a special obligation to accommodate the needs of the family as an irreplaceable cultural building block. Indeed, one “unexpected”—though perhaps not surprising—finding given the above pattern is that women without children work the hardest of all, including men. It's bad enough that men are seemingly misusing the flex benefits; just think what the male senior partners will rationally deduce when the word gets out that the hardest worker bee in the hive is the childless queen. To quote the researchers themselves, the obvious way for women “to balance work and family is to reduce their family commitments, which may be accomplished by having fewer or no children.” Yes, that's one way, but it is also a prescription for cultural suicide.
We like to think work is for the benefit of men and women and not the other way around. At least, the last time I checked this was the right order of things. The reverse proposition—that we live to rack up billable hours—would be bleak indeed, though that is pretty much the life of a young associate at any major law firm in the United States. To have a chance at getting our priorities straight, I suggest some changes in employment practices, nondiscrimination, and tax law, but would being family-friendly violate Equal Protection?
Possibly to a justice who doesn’t think child-rearing an important or compelling state interest. But who’s in that group? Surely Justices Ginsburg and liberal-thinkers like John Paul Stevens and David Souter wouldn’t want the law to be construed in a way that narrows a woman’s choices. Since under existing law pregnancy (or “pre-birth child care”) cannot be a basis of discrimination against women, why should care delivered “post-birth”? It would make no sense for either Justice Thomas, who flirts with natural law, or Justice Kennedy, who is often its modern source—worrying as he does about the ability of folks to “define their own place in the universe”—to object to giving a public tax subsidy or telling public employers not to discriminate against working mothers. If the limitation extended to private employers, Justice Thomas might drop a footnote telling us again how much he misses the original understanding of the commerce clause, but he has let similar measures go through biting his stare decisis tongue. Those in the law-as-umpire (“just callin’ em as we see ‘em”) group, the chief justice and Justices Scalia and Alito, might raise a judicially-restrained eyebrow at these innovations, but it would be perverse if those who oppose an unfettered abortion right were to go out of their way not to understand the relevant customs and traditions that underlie the “liberty” of the Fifth and 14th Amendments as family-friendly. And if these measures promote a more “active liberty”—and expanding opportunities for women does, one would think (though I confess the whole “active liberty” concept still is a tad elusive)—Justice Breyer should also be satisfied. In any event, any law is certain to be drafted gender-neutrally, using terminology like "primary caregiver" (though everyone will know that category will still mostly be women).
The presidential candidates like to talk about change. It is time we explore new employment relationships that don’t reflect 19th-century attitudes that undervalue home and family to the detriment of us all.
-
If true, the allegations that Hillary Clinton as a young lawyer assisting the congressional Watergate investigation sought to hide files, and the precedents within them, in order to deny Richard Nixon legal counsel in the context of an anticipated impeachment inquiry are once quaint and deeply troubling. The story is quaint because it is reminiscent of the well-told tales of first law students hiding materials in inappropriate places in the law library during moot court competitions. Neither Hillary's alleged misdeed nor such law school chicanery is ethical, but neither would be modernly possible given the modern electronic nature of how we access materials today, be they books or files. So much for the quaint part.
Hillary's alleged efforts to deny legal counsel to Nixon also conflicts with the position then taken by one of the most notable liberal members of the House, Don Edwards of California. Edwards had a reputation for taking brave stands against the remnants of Joe McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee and the FBI abuses that ironically enough would give rise to the Keith case and FISA. Edwards did not see civil liberty with a partisan glint, and he was one of the strongest voices against those in the Democratic party—perhaps we are now learning misadvised by the then Hillary Rodham—advocating the denial of legal counsel to President Nixon in his prospective impeachment trial.
So the troubling part of this swirling story is not just that the revelation may confirm a longer and deeper pattern of prevarication beyond the Bosnian sniper story, but also that it suggests a calculated distortion of the law aimed at adversely affecting both individual right and democratic process. Tonight on the NewsHour, New York Times reporter Eric Lichtbau called the newly released John Yoo memorandum "shoddy." I think that an unfair characterization given the intelligence of Professor Yoo and an insufficiently nuanced characterization given the context of 2003 and the more careful analysis Marty Lederman is supplying on the topic on this site. It is a description that also fails to capture how ill-served the president and the executive branch have been by the unprecedented turnover and number of acting officials at the helm of the once venerable Office of Legal Counsel, which is intended not only to make tough calls that may be politically unpopular, but also to have the good sense to send back rough drafts of legal analysis or at least not circulate them for political acceptability. But however one pieces together the story of Messer's. Bybee, Yoo, Levin, Goldsmith, Bradbury (I know I must be leaving someone out) in the OLC, the claimed offense of Mrs. Clinton is not sloppy, but corrupt, work.
Given the cultural significance of Mrs. Clinton's run for the presidency, I hope the allegation proves false. It is healthier for the body politic for Mrs. Clinton to lose to Sen. Obama on the merits. If she is dispatched on character failing, it will stir up all the justified and unjustified animosities that her husband's impeachment ordeal generates in public discussion.
There is a different account of Hillary's service in the Annual Survey of American Law. There it was written, "In 1974, while she was serving on the Impeachment Inquiry staff of the Judiciary Committee working on the Watergate proceedings, Hillary Rodham was Sara Ehrman's houseguest for nine months." As Ehrman tells it, "She was brilliant, she was a star, she could have done anything in Washington."
It would be most unfortunate were "anything" now to have a much different meaning than what was intended by the Survey's laudatory profile—namely, in fact, she did anything she wanted, including putting herself above the law.