This is really just a response to the commenters in my last thread. I’m sympathetic to the idea that no one should be considered for the Supreme Court if they are in their sixties, but I don’t agree with it. All things being equal, it’s better to have a nominee serve for thirty years than twenty, but if we really want to make this our primary concern, we should be looking at the health histories of nominees’ parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts. Does cancer run in their family? How about diabetes? Is the candidate overweight? Did they ever smoke? Do they have high blood pressure? There are plenty of people who are unlikely to live to see seventy, and others who can easily live more than a century.
Unless you’ve done that kind of extensive research, you can’t assume that Hillary Clinton is likely to serve a shorter time on the Court than someone 10 or 20 years younger.
But, more than this, there are only nine Justices. If you find someone who would be a great Justice, you should have a better reason than age to reject them. There are too many uncertainties in life to guess how things will be in twenty or thirty years.
Finally, in certain circumstances, the Republicans will allow a more progressive judge to be confirmed if they are older. I don’t think this scenario necessarily applies to Clinton, but her age makes it less likely that she would be filibustered. In any case, I’d rather have Thurgood Marshall or William Brennan on the court for fifteen years than Stephen Breyer or Elena Kagan for thirty years.
I wasn’t really advocating Hillary Clinton for the Court, even though I think she’d be great. I was saying that Joe Biden needs Clinton on the Court if he wants to president. Either that, or maybe she doesn’t run for president again and Biden can count himself lucky.
I’m not advocating Biden for president, either. I need to see who is running against him and what they have to say before I advocate for anyone. I’m just talking strategy for political junkies on a slow, rainy, Friday.