Yes, he was, by the U.S. House of Representatives on December 19, 1998 under two counts, perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Clinton was the second American president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson being the first. Neither were convicted by the Senate, but both were most certainly impeached.

Similarly, had he not cut a deal with the Arkansas Supreme Court in agreeing to a 5-year suspension of his Arkansas license, he would have been disbarred by them for the contempt-of-court citation issued by Judge Wright for his “repeated willful failure” to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones case.

But let me suggest one more reason. If we are going to see a repeat of the William Howard Taft precedent, there is a far better-qualified candidate on the horizon: Barak Obama. I will be totally unsurprised, a decade from now, if that comes to pass.

Having the greatest politician in generations on the Supreme Court would certainly qualify as a game changer. Is there any doubt that Bubba would make an immediate and indelible impact on the high court? How much would he relish the chance to match wits and do battle with Scalia, Thomas and Roberts on a daily basis? You would almost have to take pity on the justices — and the clerks for that matter — the first time he lobbied them on a decision; they wouldn’t know what had hit them. Nobody is more persuasive in a small setting, and the Supreme Court is the ultimate small setting.

This is, quite simply, nonsense. In its application of political norms to the court, it is simply not cognizant of how the Supreme Court actually functions. Either Clinton would instantly be the dimmest bulb on the court, a position neither would relish, and would be reduced to total reliance on their law clerks. Nor is it clear to me why either Clinton – both surely aware of what the court actually does most of the time, which is tax cases, securities cases, ERISA, and so forth – would want to be on the court. It is quite clear that law isn’t their first love, and that institution is no place for someone not in love with law.

Also: my CAPTCHA for that last post was “even judge”.

He wasn’t disbarred—in Arkansas his license was suspended for five years (beginning in 2001, so presumably if he re-applied he could be re-barred (is that the right word?)). Ironically, he then had to resign his membership to the United States Supreme Court bar shortly thereafter, as the Supreme Court made it clear he wasn’t welcome. Meaning, he doesn’t even have legal standing to appear before the court.

Since he was never actually convicted of perjury, presumably he could reapply to the bar now that the AK suspension is up, but I don’t believe he has done so. But that would be only the beginning of the almost infinite litany of hurdles he’d face if anyone were ever lunatic enough to try and nominate him.

Bill, if I’m not mistaken is 63, and already suffering heart problems. There’s a good chance he could pass away in 10 years, when Democrats may no longer control the White House. I expect Obama to find someone significantly younger.

This did however raise the question of Obama’s future in my mind. He’ll still be a relatively young guy in 8 years, with a resume that includes constitutional law professor, Senator, and President. He’d make a perfect justice.

I’d have a problem with him as a Justice. As much as I think he was the least impeachable of the last 4, he did break the law and really doesn’t deserve to sit in judgement over people after being impeached.

Greatest politician in generations? A first rate intellectual with the personality and persuasion to match?

I was never a huge Clinton fan, granted, but even in my wildest leftist leanings I could never go that far.

Clinton was an able politician, but that hardly makes him a suitable pick for the highest court in the land. He could certainly mop the floor with Justice Thomas (who you are also way over-valuing), but Scalia and Roberts would kick his intellectual tucus.

People on the right have always given Clinton way too much credit, simply because he made the buffoons on the right look bad. Now I suppose one could argue that in what passes in our country for politicians, Clinton does look good, but he was no more than a clever politician and a mediocre president.