Will Hillary Clinton provide a list of possible Supreme Court nominees?

[SillyAmerican]

Now that Trump has provided the list from which he'd appoint a Supreme Court Justice, will Clinton provide a similar list from which her appointments would come? Would that be a good idea, or not?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

why? it'd probably be more or less the same as obama's

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

She will renominate Garland since Ginsberg & Breyer were Bill's nominees

[Adam Griffin]

She won't even provide her speech transcripts - what makes you think she'd provide evidence of her JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!?!

</sarcasm>

[SillyAmerican]

She won't even provide her speech transcripts - what makes you think she'd provide evidence of her JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!?!

</sarcasm>

True enough. What was I thinking? Silly question... 

[publicunofficial]

Not while Garland is still on the table.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Not while Garland is still on the table.

[Holmes]

It's not really something presidential candidates do, is it? And why bother - you'd just look stupid if you end up not even picking someone from the list you provided during the campaign.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

No she won't, and it would be a terrible idea to do so, especially when there's a sitting president of her own party who has named a nominee for a current vacancy.

[skoods]

Now that Trump has provided the list from which he'd appoint a Supreme Court Justice, will Clinton provide a similar list from which her appointments would come? Would that be a good idea, or not?

Is trump going to release his tax returns since Hillary has?

[Angrie]

No, there is no reason to limit her freedom of maneuver. The only reason Trump announced a list was to mollify the right, unify Conservatives, and reduce the chance of a significant Conservative third party bid. This calculus does not apply for Clinton.

[Likely Voter]

Trump is the first candidate to ever do this and this was mostly because the far right don't trust him on the court. While Hillary has issues with her left flank, it isn't really regarding the court, so there is no need. Also it would kind of be an insult to Obama, who has an active pick out there.

[Lyin' Steve]

No, Trump just threw out a scattershot list of nominees that he put little or no thought into.  Hillary wouldn't want to put out such a list unless she'd thoroughly vetted each person on it.  It's an asymmetrical demand because Hillary has far more maturity and credibility to lose if she does a sh*tty job of it, while nobody expects Trump to do a good job.

I'm surprised Sanders hasn't demanded Hillary do this yet.  Obviously Hillary probably just wants to renominate Garland, but if Sanders presses her on it it would become an awkward issue, because she wouldn't want to say Garland because all the progressives who think he's wishy-washy (Sanders could probably convince them Garland is the devil, he doesn't give a f**k) would get mad at her, but she couldn't not say Garland because that would be a lie and it would damage Obama and the party.  Again, it's asymmetrical because Sanders doesn't care about Obama, Garland, or the democratic party, while Hillary does, so he can just say he'd nominate Assata Shakur or whoever, and she can't match that without hurting herself.  Claiming she's hiding something or that there's a big conspiracy cover-up when she refuses to answer is straight out of his playbook.  Very surprised this hasn't come up.