So, right before Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, I made my late father shit a brick when I told him that I thought George W. Bush should have nominated Bill Clinton to the vacancy left by Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement. While he convulsed, I mentioned that Clinton is actually a political moderate, and that it would've gone a long way to heal partisanship in our country (not just in politics).
I admitted that there were some problems, namely that he had been impeached (but not convicted) and that may have lied under oath (that's the big one). Bush could've pardoned him on that one, and then we could've had a healing choice.
I like Alito, I like a conservative court, frankly. But I also want checks and balances, just like the rest of the government. A moderate court would be ideal, but a balanced one is a must. Heaven forbid we should ever get a court that's decidedly one way or another. Moderation in all things, including the judiciary. My dad was too obtuse to realize how good a choice Clinton would be. I mean, he, a Democrat, overhauled welfare and reformed into a much better (though still tragically flawed) program. He was a great president, aside from his peccadilloes--which were many.
I guess my main point is that I can forgive the perjury, which he never admitted to have done. Therefore, I can totally support his appointment to the SCOTUS. However, I have a concern:
This article mentions that if Hillary were elected, she might appoint her husband. I don't like this. It's one thing for anyone else to do it; in this case it just seems like nepotism. That logic might not follow for yall, but something about it gives me cause for concern. One things is for certain, in the next five years, we're going to be replacing some judges. Some of them are O L D.