In an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, the two-term Democrat who campaigned with Obama during his run for the presidency was coy when asked about her own status as a potential Supreme Court pick.
Granholm told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley that she was vetted last year for the Supreme Court before Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor.
As to whether the second time might be the charm for her, Granholm deferred saying she “was going to allow the administration to speak on anything on this go-round.”
Granholm did not hold back, however, about whether Obama should be looking at candidates who are not currently sitting federal judges – a suggestion made often by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, whose committee holds hearings on Supreme Court nominees.
“I think it's a very wise move to consider experience that is not just from the judicial monastery,” Granholm told Crowley.
The Michigan governor, whose final term ends this year, pointed to herself and Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor and current Homeland Security Secretary, as “people that have applied the laws that Congress enacts, that have seen their impact on people.”
“And, you know, for somebody to experience and see what everyday people are feeling and experiencing out there, I think is an important thing to consider,” she said.
“Now, whether that's something that would trump judicial experience, etc. That's obviously the president's call. It’s safe to say that someone like me would be an unconventional nominee, at least in - in the recent appointments that have been made.”
Right. Let's put a politician instead of a judge on the Supreme Court, then we can have another mess like we have in Congress!
In some juridictions judges are elected by the people. Why not elect Supreme Court Justices limited to one term?. I realize the constitution would have to be amended but after all, it is a living document, is it not?
Jennifer Granholm has done such a fine job as the Governor of Michigan that she'd be perfect for the SCOTUS...NOT! Though the Dimwits really like to do it, apparently rewarding inept behavior is NOT a good thing!
She would be great for the supreme court
Someone who thinks outside the box might be a good pick the for Supreme Court. Even a moderate Republican, if there is such a thing, might be a good consideration.
No more catholics – 6 is too many (out of 9). This country should not be ruled by the pope.
No more white men – they do not make up the majority of people in this country.
No more conservative-voting people that give Corporations control of our political system/votes/advertising/propaganda during elections.
Other than those 3, have at it.
Steve in NC, we've already got it. Try Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.
Seems pretty stupid to pick someone without experience as a judge to serve as a judge. Thats as bad as picking a president with no experience. Oh we already did that.
young and far left as far left as you can get
"“And, you know, for somebody to experience and see what everyday people are feeling and experiencing out there, I think is an important thing to consider,” she said."
No it is not! Her job would be to interpret and carry out the law... period! If she wants to use her experience and this BS "I feel your pain" crap Clinton invented, then stay in a position where she can influence the creation laws, but a seat on the Supreme Court is not that position!
CNN why don't you ask the dear governor what her "short list" of action items to lead her state out of bankruptcy, instead of who she thinks a good Supreme Court nominee should be? She is just another incompetent Democrat leading her state into insolvency. I could care less who she thinks should be on the Supreme Court.
Look FIRST at the Constitutional Scholars and Constitution Professors.
They have studied the constitution more than anyone else in this country.
Sorry, but what everyday people are feeling and experiencing has nothing to do with intrepreting the laws of our constitution. That is what has gotten us in so much trouble today.
Jaywalking is a crime no matter if the person is female, gay, white, pregnant or an illegal alien. The person effected has no impact on the meaning of the law.
And we do not need a politician on the Supreme Court. Lawyers are bad enough.