Here’s the Latest Reason Republicans Are Afraid of a Hillary Clinton Presidency

It has to do with Obama.

<a href="">The White House</a>

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Supreme Court nominations, thanks to a lifetime appointment if confirmed, are always one of the most important parts of presidential administrations elections but rarely get much attention on the campaign trail. But at a campaign stop in Iowa City Friday afternoon, Ben Carson suggested to caucus voters that they had a new reason to fear Hillary Clinton becoming president: put her in the White House and you’ll end up with Barack Obama on the Supreme Court.

If there’s “another progressive president,” Carson said, “and they get two or three Supreme Court picks—one of them being Obama—America’s toast. Your children and grandchildren, they’re toast.”

Carson isn’t the first candidate to suggest this possibility—from either party. Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton said she would consider nominating Obama to the Supreme Court when she was asked about putting Obama on the bench at a town hall in Iowa. “I mean, he is brilliant and he can set forth an argument,” she said. That proved to be fodder for Sen. Marco Rubio at Thursday night’s debate. “Hillary Clinton this week said Barack Obama would make a great Supreme Court justice,” Rubio said. “The guy who systematically and habitually violates the constitution on the Supreme Court? I don’t think so.”

In terms of campaign trail fear mongering, it’s actually not a crazy suggestion. Obama did, after all, teach constitutional law classes before entering politics full-time. And he wouldn’t be the first president-cum-justice, though it’s been quite a long while since the last one, nearly a century. Only William Howard Taft has made that transition, appointed in 1921. But, as MSNBC’s Steve Benen noted, Obama told The New Yorker in 2014 that being a judge would “a little bit too monastic” for him. The White House also shot down the idea earlier this week.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend